Experiment shows gamma-rays are not photons

[Eric Reiter]

Announcement of new experiment. If you use a low "energy" gamma-ray like 88 keV from Cd109 and let it scatter to two scintillator (NaI-PMT) detectors, like a beam splitter experiment, it will trigger two detectors in coincidence at a rate surpassing chance. These detectors make pulses, and physicists usually explain it with the photon model. But therein lies the paradox: particles cannot source fields that can guide them to a wave pattern, and conversely, a wave function would need to magically collapse to the energy conversion event. My experiment shows detector pulses are due to the detection mechanism, as a fundamental property of matter, not particles of light. If it was photons and a probability wave, I would read only chance-rate coincidences (the way all other experiments did). I was very careful to only count full height (windowed) pulses and eliminate various confounding factors, as described on my website. The chance coincidence rate at the detectors is easily calculated, and I measure coincidences from two to 200 times the chance rate. It only works when the photoelectric effect efficiency is larger than the Compton effect for the type of detector. There are very few isotopes that have the low "energy" (giving high PE efficiency)and are also free of other gamma that interfere, explaining why this has not been seen before. There were serious mistakes in previous attempts at this beam-splitter experiment using light and x-rays, and no one even tried it with gamma-rays. Why? Because it was thought to be a fact that gamma-rays were photons. My theory is an enhancement of the loading theory, first proposed by Planck in 1911. By using the wavelength of the group in de Broglie's equation and realizing e/m, h/m, e/h are the constants, and that e, h, and m are maximums that can thin-out in free space, I can derive the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, spin g factor, black body spectrum, and can picture the inner structure of matter/antimatter. My PhotoElectric derivation links the PE equation to the deBroglie eq and Balmer's eq. Einstein's photoelectric work was more a statement of his particle model than a derivation. To Einstein's credit he titled it "On a heuristic point of view... ." The loading theory was rejected prematurely, mostly from not accepting the partially loaded state in time calculations, and from not accepting a mechanism for accumulation at arbitrary frequencies (see Compton's and Millikan's books). My work represents a serious challenge to quantum mechanics. I challenge the physical science community to find any crucial mistake in my experiment and to repeat my effect. My web site shows 20 versions of the experiment in detail. Furthermore I do a historical analysis that identifies common misconceptions of famous physics works. My experiment was first on the web May 2002. I have been submitting to publishers, since 5/01. Please see my work at

(http://www.unquantum.com/)

Thank you.

Eric Reiter, Aug 2003.
unquantum@ieee.org

[jcsd]

I think you're main mistake is that you just don't understand wave-particle duality, I've not looked at your site in great detail but your so-called paradox is consistently expalined in all QM interpretations.

[Creator]

Eric;
Excellent experiment and thought provoking analysis!

You are correct about the particle bias that can skew objectivity.
Excellent analysis of Clauser"s experiment containing unnecessary polarization influences, needing revision. Good eye; we need this sort of calling the past into account.

I've always considered heuristically that wave eqns. operated in free space and quantization was simply an effect of atomic oscillators in the detector.

However, as well as you have done to present empirical evidence to substantiate this, there is another possibility which would need to be eliminated before your analysis becomes definitive. Let me phrase it in terms of a question:

Have you ever thought of the possibility (however remote) that coincidence in low energy Cd109 is simply a reflection of an emission characteristic of Cd109 and that in reality you may have discovered some basis for a non-random emission correlation?? And what could you do to eliminate that possibility??

Creator

[Eric Reiter]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If there were two gammas emitted in synchronized fashion it would be by stimulated emission. The effect I described here also worked with Co57, so it is not just an effect of Cd109. I reasoned that the calculations for resonant absorption would also hold for stimulated emission. I did calculations using Mossbauer theory covered in Seighbahn's book, and found negligible probability of that effect. Co57 is famous for resonant absorption, but that is the 14.4 keV line. The 122 and 136 keV Co57 emissions are not linked to the crystal lattice and will not respond to resonant stimulated emission because of thermal motion. Then I did some experiments with Cd109 in a special tube I made, to make a line of isotope. I squeezed the end of a glass test tube to make a chisel shape inside. Sort of like a laser, if it tended to do stimulated emission it should do it on the axis that the stuff is all lined up upon. So then I tested with the source lined up, and at right angles to the detector and took spectrums, and searched for changes at energies at two times the primary gamma. If it tended to do stimulated emission, I would have seen more of an anomalous sum-peak when the isotope was lined up. There were no measurable changes. I could perhaps do more on this, using the two-detector test, but it takes some tooling up because the chisel shaped tube does not fit in the well-tube detector (trigger detector) as easily. I could try Rayleigh scatter geometry, but the effect is not as strong. This issue was described on my website already, and the tests I described were done about a year ago. I am glad you brought it up. I thought eliminating resonant absorption and emission theoretically would lay rest to that issue.
Thanks
ER

[Creator]

Eric:

Thank you for accomodating my incomplete reading (due to time limitations) of your site which demonstates your obvious thoroughness with regards to eliminating possible emission coincidences. To your credit much careful attention (and experimental effort) reveals your anticipation of inevitable objections.

However, I am still not satisfied. So forgive me if I continue to challenge:

You said,
"I reasoned that the calculations for resonant absorption would also hold for stimulated emission."

How so? Since you predicated the elimination of coincident emissions on the applicabilty of Mossbauer resonant absorption calculations to stimulated emission, could you please tell me what thinking and/or calculations allows that conclusion? I am unfamiliar with Seighbahm's calculations - does he allow such an application?

Thanks again,

Creator

[Eric Reiter]

Thanks for your note.

For stimulated emission, there must be absorption. I do not expect non-resonant absorption because (1) lasers need resonant absorption for stimulated emission and it would need to be laser like to make the gamma go in the same direction , (2) we would have noticed many more coincidences beyond chance in other experiments, and (3) the world would be less stable. So I assumed absorption only happens when it is resonant. It would need to be a laser-like stimulated emission to make the gammas go in the same direction. It is easily off resonance from nuclear recoil Doppler down-shifting the emitted gamma. Resonant absorption needs to satisfy the condition that the recoil energy R = [(88keV)^2] / [2Mc^2] << kT, where, M=mass of nucleus, k=Boltzman’s, T=Debye temperature = 209K for Cd (from Am inst of phys handbook). I got R=0.034, kT=0.018, which means resonant absorption cannot happen at room temperature. Both isotopes I used are not expected to support resonant absorption. Mossbauer says that low temperatures are necessary to get measurable effects if R ~= kT, but R is already too high by a factor of 2. It should be possible to make a grazing mirror system in a circle and use the Co57 14.4 keV line and make a gamma-ray laser. I do not think this has been done yet.

Remember my effect happens using two different isotopes. Also, it is not just two but three events that I can detect in coincidence. The detectors are only about 10% efficient, making three emitted photons a one in a thousand chance of being detected. Next I could somehow estimate what fraction three would be emitted this way, and then compare to the experimental rate. The HPGe test I did got 0.0013/s in the x2 region which covered about 10 bins, 1/0.013s = every 77 seconds. The rate in the HPGe detector, ungated, got a hit every 0.33 sec. one thousandth of this is 0.003/s. So if one in 3 did stimulated emission it would give the measured 0.001/s. This is very unlikely, because we would have noticed an even stronger effect with greater volume isotope samples. One more thing. For stimulated emission, we think it needs a population inversion, and I do not know if this has been discovered with nuclear levels, because no one made a gamma laser yet (have they?). I think it is possible to make isotopes do stimulated emission, and make a gamma laser, if cooled.


Reference is Mossbauer’s article in Seigbahn’s book Alpha-,Beta and Gamma-ray Spectroscopy Vol 2.

[vlamir]

Eric,
I subscribe to opinion of Creator. Really, excellent work.
Yet I not quite penetrate into your theory; therefore, I would like to ask a pair of common questions.
1) If low-energetic gamma-quantum is not photon, then, probably, it can be debris of an electron or any particle. Then it is possible to expect, that the speed of such gamma-quantum will differ in vacuum from speed of photons.
2) The concept " reflection of wave " is relative. As a matter of fact process of reflection consists of absorption of an incident wave by atoms and induction of new wave, which, as is considered, has the same parameters, except a direction. Probably on path of gamma-quantum (for example, in Al) there is an energy jump ~88keV, which works from weak resonance disturbance at moment of passing of gamma-quantum.

[Eric Reiter]

in answer to your question 1) "If low-energetic gamma-quantum is not photon, then, probably, it can be debris of an electron or any particle. Then it is possible to expect, that the speed of such gamma-quantum will differ in vacuum from speed of photons."
I do not know who did it, but there must be many experiments that have measured that gamma-rays go c. Also, there are gamma Bragg grating spectrometers that correlate detector pulse size to electromagnetic wavelength. Gamma is electromagnetic. The point of my work is to make the distinction between light being a photon(probabalistic wave) or an electromagnetic wave. If it is not a photon, it is electromagnetic (not some other particle). I am showing light has nothing to do with particles, accept there is a particle-like illusion in the exchange between the electromagnetic wave and the kinetic energy of the charge wave.

question 2) "The concept " reflection of wave " is relative. As a matter of fact process of reflection consists of absorption of an incident wave by atoms and induction of new wave, which, as is considered, has the same parameters, except a direction. Probably on path of gamma-quantum (for example, in Al) there is an energy jump ~88keV, which works from weak resonance disturbance at moment of passing of gamma-quantum."
It seems you are on the subject of determining if my measured coincidences are due to two emissions created at rates greater than chance (I say the coincidences are due to detection). I eliminated that possibility from an analysis of my HPGe experimental data and using the efficiencies of the detectors. The rate of such coincident emissions would be so high that different geometries of the source would allow the effect to show up in an experiment. I did that experiment by making a thin line of Cd109 and detecting spectrums with the detector in-line and sideways.
Thanks for your comments
ER

[Creator]

Eric;
Thanks for your response on stimulated emission.
Sorry for not responding sooner. I appreciate your swift response but I’m a slow poke; especially when I see things that don’t compute and want to give it the time it deserves.

You said,
<” To have stimulated emission there must be resonate absorption”.>

Not necessarily;
Obviously, you are only thinking of the functioning of continuous lasers and not thinking of the fundamental physics of the lasing process. 'Single pass' stimulated emission is an example where lasing doesn’t require such. At the most fundamental level lasing is simply an acceleration in the rate of atomic decay using the resonant perturbing electric field of the stimulating photon, (no cavities required). At this microscopic level no resonant absorption for individual stimulated emission is required and makes lasing far more ubiquitous than is typically realized:

There are many cases of ‘natural’ lasers: example: the discovery of lasing in planetary atmospheres:
Mars …. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1981Sci...212...45M

Venus …. Where single pass gains of about 10 percent are observed, comparable to single-pass gains in some earth based CO2 lasers. See reports below:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1983Icar...55..356D

Espenak,F., Deming,D., Jennings,D., Kostiuk,T., Mumma,M.J., Zipoy,D.: 1983, Icarus, 55, 347.

Also in other astrophysical sources like naturally occurring laser emission which has been discovered as in MWC 349, a young, luminous star in Cygnus that's surrounded by a disk of gas and dust. Also others:
http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/G1975/index.html

Many astrophysical maser sources (I think there are 100 now) also verify the ease at which single pass (non cavity) generated lasing occurs.:
Thum, C.; Matthews, H.E.; Harris, A.I.; Tacconi, L.J.; Schuster, K.F. et al. ``Detection of H21 Maser Emission at 662 GHz in MWC-349.'' Astron. Astrophys. Let. 288, L125-L128, 1994b.


The many varied processes of natural lasing ought to convince us of the possibility of single pass nuclear lasing. Like you, I am not familiar with all nuclear requirements for lasing, but since unstable nuclei can be considered ‘excited’ states, further population inversion may be unnecessary.

It should be remembered that many artificial lasers are accomplished with single pass geometry. Many times ‘pumping’ the medium is not required as with Masers where the population is enriched merely by ‘sorting’. Demonstrations of various methods of inversionless lasing have become commonplace recently as you probably are aware.
Also, you probably are aware that under very high electric field strengths two photon absorption/emission processes are known to occur in the electronic levels, and I see no compelling evidence to exclude that as a nuclear possibility.

I understand your concern with Mossbauer functions whereby typically Doppler broadening should prevent Co57 & Cd109 from ‘continuous’ lasing. However, I believe single pass lasing obviates these objections.

However, having addressed your ‘lasing requirement’, I will go back to my original comment which was much more general in scope than the rather restricted objection of ‘stimulated’ emission. I used the term ‘non random’ emission (not referring to only stimulated emission) so as to include the possibility of coincident ‘spontaneous’ emissions.

Since QED determines that spontaneous emission is (in large part) due to zero point EM fluctuations of the vacuum, in reality ALL emissions are ‘stimulated’.
First, it would not be unreasonable to expect nuclear stimulated emission due to ‘spontaneous’ gamma emissions, especially since the probability of stimulated emission is supposedly due to the (so called) dynamic Stark perturbation, the probability of which increases with electric field strength of the stimulating photon.

However, even if it could be shown that nuclear ‘stimulated’ emission in the traditional sense is forbidden, there still remains the possibility of coincident gammas due to modification of the perturbing zero point fluctuation source.
Artificial modification of the fluctuations (by boundary conditions, etc) have been shown to suppress spontaneous emissions, and alter decay paths. Is there any reason not to suspect that nuclear conditions can modify the internal zero point field, resulting in non random emission probability changes?


<“Remember my effect happens using two different isotopes. Also, it is not just two but three events that I can detect in coincidence”>.

Given the causal scenario I described above I would expect different gamma emitters to reflect a common nuclear mechanism for coincident emission.


{Why have ‘other experiments’ failed to uncover coincident gamma emissions?}

Basically because of the same deficiencies you discovered in ‘other’ experiments (Clauser and the like).
Foremost, as you have already mentioned, is because no one is looking for it, so that experimental design is usually unwittingly based on a predetermined subjectivity which favors quantum ‘particles’ AND random emission probability.

2ndly, outright systematic error (as you have already shown) have precluded detection. For ex., As in Clauser’s set-up; a stimulated gamma, having the same polarization as the stimulating spontaneous photon, would be channeled to the same detector simultaneously.

Third, the phenomena may be innate to certain nuclear parameters (’threshold’ energy, etc.) and thus only makes itself evident in certain nuclear configurations.

In conclusion, ask yourself this question: If we are going to question the accepted quantum theory of photon 'propagation', is it any more unreasonable to question the currently accepted quantum theory of ‘random’ nuclear emission? My opinion at this point is that suspicion of either is equally deserving.

Hopefully this post will not be received as a refutation of your interpretation of valid empirical evidence; rather it is refuting statements you made objecting to the possibility of non-random gamma emissions acting as confounding influences.
Again I think it to be excellent work worthy of dedicated peer review.[a)]

Creator

P.S.(When posting replies it helps to start with the specific name of the poster so there is no confusion as to whose post you are responding to).

[Eric Reiter]

Creator:
I may have eliminated the case for coincident multiple emissions as the cause of my effect with a simple calculation. I outlined this idea on a previous post, but there were mistakes, so I repeat it here. The detectors have about 10% efficiency. From my paper showing the Cd109 HPGe Coincidence Spectrum there is a peak, at 2x 88 keV. This peak required three detections in coincidence,
because of two to make that peak plus the one in the trigger tube. That 2x peak had 0.0013/s in just one bin. There are more than one bin read at the 2x position at about the stated rate; lets conservatively take 5 bins to get 5 x 0.0013 = 0.0065/s detected in triple coincidence. Now go to the ungated detection rate at
88 keV and see 3/s at 10% efficiency. Counting the other two detections to make a triple coincidence means that (3 per sec)/100 = .03/s would, in this scenario, need to be emitted three at a time aimed toward the detectors. That makes the ratio detected/predicted = 0.0065/0.03, meaning every 4.6
emissions would be emitted in triplicate in the same direction. This is a large fraction. With stimulated emission, or even a collision process, the probability of such a thing happening all in the same direction would be enhanced if there was more volume of isotope for the gamma-ray to interact with. It
turns out I did a test with a line of Cd109 to test just that. I heated and squeezed the end of a glass tube to make a chisel shaped trough and sent it away to be filled with Cd109. I then did tests to see if the anomalous sum-peak rate changed when the trough axis was aimed at the detector, and was perpendicular to the detector. With such a large ratio of 1/4.6, there would have been a noticeable effect at the 2x part of the spectrum, even in the presence of Cd113m contamination. There was no effect. If something less coherent than stimulated emission, such as a collision process, was at play the emissions would go in random directions and that would make the chances of coincident detection much lower than detected. The solid angle used was ~0.5 radians from the source to
the detectors; 0.04 of a sphere. This would be cubed and used as a
correction factor greatly in my favor, leaving only a stimulated emission kind of effect (or at least something directional).

In addition to the above argument, I also calculated if stimulated absorption was possible at room temperature with a calculation used by Mossbauer. The Mossbauer
calculation is for resonant absorption, but that would be needed for
stimulated emission. Stimulated emission is the only process I know of that could re-emit in the same direction. The calc showed it was not allowed.

It is possible to do more study with the chisel shaped Cd109 source in a coincidence experiment, and I may do it if people continue to suspect a heretofore unknown kind of high probability coincident directed triggered emission mechanisms in both Cd109 and Co57. Such an effect would also have to magically hide behind the small noise from Cd113m in the Cd109 spectrum. There are reasons for the currently accepted theory of random nuclear emission. We are not able to trigger gamma emission. With other gamma lines at higher “energy” than the crossover point between photoelectric & Compton efficiency in the detector, the coincidences disappear. This links my effect to the photoelectric effect in the detector.

It is much more reasonable to question quantum mechanics over a new kind of non-random gamma emission, because qm was always paradoxical. Particles can not generate the interference pattern, and alternatively, the collapse of the wave function would need to magically guide itself to a point from all space. Particles and other assumptions were in every derivation of the deBroglie equation and in the photoelectric photon model.

Thank You
Eric Reiter

[paultrr]

I think over all you're treatment of this was good. But, there was an interesting problem somewhat discussed here. If they are not photons then how, and this is based upon measurements actually done, can these particle reach C. According to relativity, which I believe most here subscribe to, nothing possessing rest mass can travel at the velocity of light. If they were electrons then they possess what is known as rest mass, unlike photons that have no rest mass, according to theory, and as such any mechanism that could be invoked to bring them to C would require infinite energy. Now, I might buy them not being actual photons, since this in part would solve a certain problem with cutoff and observational data that displays spectrums higher than those, but, by known theory then they should display velocities slower than light. If I read you correct they don't display velocities any different. And I believe no other experiment/observation has ever detected them moving slower than light. So, how do you account for this and have you given any thought to possibly offering a suggestion on how this would be possible?

[Eric Reiter]

Paultrr
Thanks for your note.
Please. Nowhere do I describe light as being like a charge. Light and charge are different. I do not describe them as things, but rather as waves with different properties. The wave properties of charge that I introduce are admittedly unusual, but I show it all fits experiment. My theory shows how light and charge intersect. Light is the modulator of a charge-wave envelope (beat).

My experiment makes the distinction between quantum mechanical light, called photons, and classical light which are not photons or particles of any sort. I am trying to show that light is an electromagnetic wave, just like it was before the photon idea became so popular. Relativity does not need photons, it is just often described that way.

My experiment works because the detectors are close to the gamma source that emits a pulse of electromagnetic energy in a directed laser like fashion. If the source was far away, it would spread and not set-off coincidences, and experiments would respond in the usuall way, as if light was photons. However, by my observation that under the proper conditions the photon model fails, plus my theory as to why this happens, shows light was never photons at all. This shows that the particle-like property of light is an illusion of the properties of the charge-wave in the detector.


Thank You
ER

[shchr]

I am sorry. I have not read your site. But I feel to want to ask one question.
Is the gamma ray a coherent wave? If so, the gamma ray is described by the superposition of many number states (photon states). Please think this possibility.

[Eric Reiter]

Shchr:
Thank you for your question.

It seems that by talking of numbers of photon states, you may be considering the possibility that multiple photons were emitted in a directed fashion from the source toward the detector. I addressed that possibility in previous letters on this forum.

[vlamir]

Eric,
It happens so, that one choice word-combination uncloses path into new theory.
I have liked your word-combination "charge-wave", as I also work with the problem of physical nature of charge.
According to my theoretical researches, the charge, as such, has no physical sense, but the quadrate of charge can be simulated, as the strictly-oriented space structure. I.e. the charge works only in strictly-appointed direction. Here I with you agree.
But as to the modulator of beatings, I doubt, that in structure of atoms there are such modulators.
Approximately five years ago I tried to find an equation of "internal beating difference frequencies" for the spectrum of hydrogen, but for me nothing it has turned out.
However, other equation I have derived. According to this equation, the frequency of radiation of atom is proportional to the difference of lengths of waves of emitter (not of the modulator) on different energy levels.
So then, what is the modulator M in your theory?

[Eric Reiter]

Vlamir
Thanks for your note.
The Balmer equation has a difference of two terms, and this equation describes the H spectrum. The simplest expression of this equation is freq(light) = freq(psi 2)-freq(psi 1). As soon as you see this structure you get to use the trig identity relating (wave of freq 1) + (wave of freq 2) = (wave of the average freq) * ( wave of the difference freq). The wave of the difference freq is M. Schrodinger discussed beats in the atom in his first 1926 paper; GP Thomson cites CG Darwin’s work where the heterodyned charge wave can predict the particles (events) as well as the normal deBroglie wavelength. These few lines in Thompson’s book are the only place I could find in all the literature where the envelope wavelength related to charge is mentioned. The M wave fits the envelopes. I am saying that if one tries the envelope wavelength in a modified h=pL (L=wavelength) deBroglie equation, it fits the derivation of the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, spin g factor derivation, antimatter prediction, and black body distribution, (and more) like I did in my paper of 2001 on my web site. It seems that the force in charge is closely linked to charge’s envelope structure. The M wave is the intersection between light and charge. At this intersection, the freq of modulation of the envelope and of light are the same. The speeds are different, but that does not matter. Light radiates from the M wave, and couples energy into charge through the M wave.

My experiments force the issue that light has nothing to do with particles (as you know but I say this for others). This forces our re-assessment of charge; that is charge (of course) cannot be a particle either. Using the new wavelength equation in the envelope property, plus the ratio and threshold properties (my three postulates) in the derivations of our most famous key experiments, says something for the use of these three postulates. They work.
I expect that you and other physicists, will also see consistency with these postulates in interpretation of experimental data. To see this, the message of the experiment must be clearly separated from the message of the experimenter. For instance, the message of the photoelectric effect experiment is not h*(freq) = (electron charge)(volts), it is (freq)/(volts)=(the e/h RATIO). My work is to identify the “message of the experiment” and show the simplest set of postulates that satisfy these experiments without resorting to duality (paradox of model).

If psi, the inner wave of what is beating, is going c, then wavelength differences can be used as easily as the freq differences. If the inner wave goes c it can explain relativity. It is like the light clock that shrinks in direction of travel. Its dimensions are described by something going c. If internally, matter also goes c it will shrink the same way.

Our results are parallel. I use difference in freq, you use difference in length. If they go c it is easy to convert to freq. With difference freq you get the M that gives the picture of the intersection of matter and light, and that let me derive the other equations, and understandings (like uncertainty, exclusion, PE effect) that QM needed to postulate. Mine is a visualizable kind of postulate system whereas the QM postulates are blind rules.

I elaborated here to clarify for other readers. Thanks for sending your paper. There were several constants that appeared from nowhere, so I did not really understand it.

[vlamir]

Thanks Eric.
Mathematics helps us to understand a physical nature of phenomenons, but if happens so, that same phenomenon is described by different persons with help of different mathematics, it means, as that and another of math is doubtful.
In this case it is necessary to test, which math utilize less postulates.
I am rather afflicted, that many physicists consider postulates, as advantage of the theories and, therefore, mechanically utilize them in the theoretical researches.
Now I shall give the formula, which describes a generated charge-wave of an atomic oscillator in time and in space (I hope, that you are slightly familiar with denotations, which I utilize in my formulas), therefore I have made small zip-file (3Kb).

[jammieg]

Would it be fair to then say that light mostly behaves like a particle with wave like properties and gamma rays mostly behave like waves with particle like properties?

[shchr]

Eric:
I read your assertion briefly. Your discussion is devoted mostly to analysis of possibility of simultaneaous detection of peaks at different detectors, if I understand your discussion. But in order not to detect peaks simultaneously, we have to confirm that
as energy of gamma ray is described by nh&nu;. nh&nu; should be made small so that n=1.
I could not find your discussion about frequency of gamma ray and the above discussion.
How do you think about this.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by jammieg
Would it be fair to then say that light mostly behaves like a particle with wave like properties and gamma rays mostly behave like waves with particle like properties?
I think, Eric will be agree with me, that gamma-quantum and the photon have the following common properties: they display properties of a particle in a direction of flight, whereas property of a wave - in a perpendicular direction.
The gamma-quantum have sizeable electrical (charge) amplitude, therefore they display well-defined properties of a charge-wave.

[Eric Reiter]

originally posted by shchr
I read your assertion briefly. Your discussion is devoted mostly to analysis of possibility of simultaneaous detection of peaks at different detectors, if I understand your discussion. But in order not to detect peaks simultaneously, we have to confirm that
as energy of gamma ray is described by nh?. nh? should be made small so that n=1.
I could not find your discussion about frequency of gamma ray and the above discussion.
How do you think about this.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Shchr: thanks for your note:
With germanium and scintillation detectors we do not measure gamma freq directly. We measure pulse heights, and we assume E=hv from another experiment: the gamma-ray crystal diffractometer. There, Bragg reflection on crystal planes have confirmed the relation between pulse-height in our pulse-generating detectors; then we measure angles from which we easily calculate freq of the electromagnetic wave. At the angle of measurement we place the pulse-height detector to see the relationship. From that experiment we can also safely assume one pulse at a time is emitted and n=1.
Eric


__________________________________________________ ______________
Originally posted by jammieg
Would it be fair to then say that light mostly behaves like a particle with wave like properties and gamma rays mostly behave like waves with particle like properties?


I think, Eric will be agree with me, that gamma-quantum and the photon have the following common properties: they display properties of a particle in a direction of flight, whereas property of a wave - in a perpendicular direction.
The gamma-quantum have sizeable electrical (charge) amplitude, therefore they display well-defined properties of a charge-wave.
__________________________________________________ _______________



Vlamir and Shchr: thanks for your notes:
I am afraid I do not quite agree. It is best to see through the illusion of particles and understand what is happening. My experiment makes the distinction between the probability wave and a classical electromagnetic wave. To set-off coincidences the classical gamma electromagnetic field would need to be pulsatile. This is the particle-like property in the direction of flight you referred to, but it is just describing the kind of classical light. With gamma-rays from far away, like the sun, the pulsatile properties would have faded out. My experiment would not show coincidences with gamma from far away. This would leave only the loading effect in the detector, which would show random events with no coincidences. Had we not seen my experiment we would still think gamma was a probability wave and photons.

Gamma-rays are not charge. We can convert light to and from charge pairs, but after the conversion they have different properties.

__________________________________________________ _______
NEW EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS:
I just did the experiment with two high resolution germanium detectors, and it still works.

There is a mistake in my previous writing that I will correct. I called the scattering, Rayleigh scattering. I could not resolve Compton from Rayleigh in these tests and falsely assumed it was Rayleigh. Now with the two Ge detectors I can see the reflected component is shifted, so where I said Rayleigh it should be Compton. This does not at-all effect my assertion that the photon is “busted” (to be understood as a false concept).


______________________________
Valmir:
thanks for your equation. I can not tell what it means or where it came from. It may be something really great, but I need to see how things are developed and see how it fits experiment, very carefully.
Thank You,
Eric Reiter

[vlamir]

Very well Eric,
I think, for us there will be useful a small excursus to physical sense of mass and charge.
The same way as you, me don't satisfy concept of "mass", though substitution "a resistance to acceleration" doesn't solve the problem.
I think, that the solution of the problem of mass is necessary it to search by comparison of mass with different sorts of energy. In this case, mass can be expressed, as speed of change of an amount of energy in the system and as speed of conversion of one sorts of energy into others.
All of us know, that there are two sorts of a mechanical energy - kinetic and potential. But physics for some reason have yielded to these different sorts of energy the identical unit of measurements - joule. One joule is an operation of force equal to one newton on length equal to one meter J=N*m.
I have fulfilled researches of resonance processes in classical objects of the ring form and have found the equations, which can be applied to the description of processes of exchange of energy between atoms and conversion energy in atom.
From these equations follows, that the dimensionality of electric charge (C) is equal to the square root of force multiplied on time
1C~(N^1/2)*s or N~(C/s)^2.
Agree with me, that physical nature of such dimensionality of electric charge we understand cannot. But dimensionality of energy expressed as (N*s) is possible to understand as operation of force in time, i.e. as operation without moving.
Let's designate operation (energy) with moving Wl~N*m, and operation (energy) without moving Wt~N*s.
Then the ratio (Wl/Wt)~v will have dimensionality of speed.
One of sorts of exchange of energy between atoms is the exchange of photons (E=h*[nu]). Dimensionality Planck`s constant is (J*s=N*m*s=Wt*m), i.e. the Planck`s constant represents operation of a photon on length commensurable with sizes of atom.
On the other hand, the identity N~(C/s)^2 can be considered as quadrate of a variable charge, i.e. quadrate of the electrical component of a wave.
From standard definition of a kinetic energy
Wk=(M/2)*v^2~(M/2)*(Wl/Wt)^2
follows, that the mass is formal concept. The mass can go into (be dissolved) as in Wl, as well as in Wt. The change of a kinetic energy happens at change of the ratio Wl/Wt.

[vlamir]

Now, about beams and spectrums.
We know, that the charges interact one with other. As to photons, I, for example, did not meet in the literature of the messages on interaction of photons in vacuum.
Really, some rays of light can simultaneously pass through the same point in blank space in different directions. At that, any distortion in spectral and amplitude characteristics does not arise. It is possible, that it is so weak interaction, that the measurement it while is unavailable.
On the other hand, the laser beams display a divergence, which, mainly, arises because of a diffraction of the optical system of laser. But, probably, some share of a divergence arises also because of charge interaction.
The word-combination charge-wave has guess that the gamma-quantums should interact among themselves similarly of charges, but should not interact similarly of electromagnetic waves.
If there was a gamma-laser, that, probably, and there would be an answer to this question.
The answer to this question is extremely important.
In the atomic spectrum analysis the concept "number of a spectrum of element" is utilized.
So, for example, number of spectrum He_II it is spectrum of ion He+, but not of ion He++; number of spectrum Li_III it is spectrum of ion Li++, but not of ion Li+++; etc.
In this case, the theory is in inconvenient position. To explain the electromagnetic radiation of atom it is necessary to leave in atom at least one electric dipole.
As to hydrogen, I couldn't to receive an intelligible explanation on the question:
"How arises the radiation of ionized hydrogen H+?"
You see the ion of hydrogen has no electron.
Therefore, I have explained this phenomenon in own way.
The short-wave boundary of the spectrum of ionized hydrogen has start with the first wave in the series by Lyman ~121.6nm. (This spectrum has also other explanation).
The short-wave boundary of the spectrum of atomic hydrogen has start with the first wave in the series by Balmer ~656.3nm.
The short-wave boundary of the spectrum of molecular hydrogen has start with the first wave in the series by Pashen ~1875.1nm.
In the ratio of heavier elements our mind makes to us the artful hint - if in atom there are some oscillators, there should be an effect of modulation.
Following with this way, the theory offers us huge number of spectrum lines, which exceeds number of observable lines many times over. However and it does not save the situation. It appears, that among observable lines there are such, which the theory "does not see".
On the example of atom of helium I can show character of interaction of two atomic oscillators. I shall do it somehow in other time.
As to isotopes of cadmium, in the meantime this task is excessive for me.
The nearest element, for which I have made some graphs, there is beryllium. The beryllium has the unstable radioactive isotope 7Be (T/2=53.29 of days, radiation energy 862KeV). For me it would be very interesting to find in the literature the spectrum of this radioactive beryllium.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

To separate a negative charge from a positive one, i.e. to create a monopole, it is impossible in principle . An Oscillator of EM fluctuations can be made not only of a rotating dipole, but also of a dipole in which EM force changes a sign, i.e. the poles are interchanged the position. It occurs on the channel connecting them. Not in the vacuum, not toward nowhere.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Eric,
I agree with you, that a photon not a pure particle. But it not a pure EM wave too.
It is precisely on border between gravitation and EM. Therefore its properties are so not certain. It is possible to tell, that it continuously balances between properties of a particle and EM waves.
Gamma - rays, at my point, possess already properties of a particle while properties of EM at them are absent completely. I confident an exact experiments should show that they travel not in “c”.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
To separate a negative charge from a positive one, i.e. to create a monopole, it is impossible in principle . An Oscillator of EM fluctuations can be made not only of a rotating dipole, but also of a dipole in which EM force changes a sign, i.e. the poles are interchanged the position. It occurs on the channel connecting them. Not in the vacuum, not toward nowhere.

Michael
We already had considering charges and I think soon we shall return to this theme again. Now it is necessary, to separate cutlets from flies (êîòëåòû îò ìóõ), i.e. charges from waves.
I think, Eric is able to do it.

Reasoning from aforesaid in my replays, it is possible to state, that the main feature of photons is presence of a set of waves, which submits to strict mathematical legitimacy. Besides, my mathematical simulation reveal, that each element of the Mendeleyev's table has "the own Lyman's series (wave train)" and, accordingly, short-wave boundary of this series. Below than this boundary, photons submit to mathematical legitimacy. Above than this boundary, photons of this series cannot exist.
This legitimacy is confirmed mathematically for all completely ionized atoms, i.e. as a matter of fact, it is the photonic series of bare nuclear.
This conclusion speaks that the gamma-quantums are not photons.
However some doubt will remain until the precise experimental data about photonic spectrums of gamma-active isotopes will be extracted.