photon violation spectroscopy

8/3/2019 Photon Violation Spectroscopy

1/34

PHOTON VIOLATION SPECTROSCOPY

Eric Reiter, June 2005

ABSTRACT

The method typically uses spontaneous gamma rays from radioisotopes, either cadmium-109 at 88 keVor cobalt-57 at 122 keV, detected with NaI(Tl) or HPGe. After a two-part split, detection pulses arewindowed for the characteristic gamma ray pulse amplitude and measured in coincidence. By using highresolution detectors and gamma rays that match the part of the spectrum where the detector has a highphotoelectric effect efficiency, coincidence rates are found to substantially exceed the chance rate. Thisrefutes the quantum mechanical prediction of energy quantization. This unquantum effect implies thatphotons are an illusion, and is explained by an extension of the abandoned loading theory of Planck to derivethe photoelectric effect equation. In scattering gamma rays in a beam splitter geometry, changes in responseto magnetic fields, temperature, and crystal orientation are tools for measuring properties of atomic bonds.With detectors in a tandem geometry where the first detector is both scatterer and absorber, tests revealproperties consistent with a classical gamma ray model. The method has also shown use in discovering that

different crystalline states of the gamma ray source change the extent coincidence rates exceed chance,whereas conventional gamma ray spectroscopy shows no substantial dependence upon these appliedvariables.

BACKGROUND

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to the field of physicalmeasurement and more particularly to the field ofgamma ray spectroscopy.

PRIOR ART

Prior art is in the form of physicsexperiments interpreted by scientists to concludeenergy is always quantized. There is prior theory, previously rejected by the physical sciencecommunity, in support of the possibility of myfindings.

The following thought experiment isimportant in the history of physics. In N Bohrsbook , Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge

(1958) pg. 50, he describes his 1927 discussionswith Einstein and describes Einstein's two-partbeam splitter thought experiment:

If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed in the wayof a photon, leaving two possibilities for itsdirection of propagation, the photon would berecorded on one, and only one, of twophotographic plates situated at great distances inthe two directions in question, or else we may, byreplacing the plates by mirrors, observe effects

exhibiting an interference between the tworeflected wave-trains.

This is the principle of the photon. I willalso call it the beam splitter test. It is the first halfof this quote that describes a particle property oflight. The meaning of this thought experiment wasclearly elaborated upon by Heisenberg in his bookQuantum Theory (1930) pg. 39. Heisenberg

concluded that the probability-amplitude waveundergoes an instantaneous reduction of the wavepacket upon finding the photon in one part of thebeam splitter to avoid finding the photon in theother part. DeBroglie also discusses a version ofEinsteins thought experiment in terms of ageneralized particle, not just photons, in An Introduction to the Study of Wave Mechanics(1930) pg. 142.

An early version of Einsteins beam splittertest was performed by MP Givens, An

experimental study of the quantum nature of x-rays, Philos. Mag. 37 (1946) pgs. 335-346,whereby x-rays from a Coolidge tube weredirected at a NaCl target. The x-rays werearranged to Bragg reflect and split into two beamstoward Geiger-Mueller detectors. X-ray eventsdetected in coincidence did not exceed the low rateexpected by chance, consistent with the quantummechanical prediction. They did not breakchance.


2/34

In another beam splitter test, visible lightwas tested to see if detector pulses in coincidencescould defy chance, performed by E Brannen andHIS Ferguson in The question of correlation between photons in coherent light rays Nature,

4531 (1956) pg.481. They used a filtered mercuryarc line as a source, a beam splitter, and two photomultiplier tubes (PMT) as detectors, andsearched for coincidences from pulses from thePMTs. The coincidences detected did not breakchance. These authors state if such a correlationdid exist it would call for a major revision of somefundamental concepts in quantum mechanics. Inother words, if anyone were to break chance in asingle h detection beam splitter test, it would breakquantum mechanics.

An experimental beam splitter test designedto detect one h released at a time was not published until 1974 by JF Clauser in,Experimental distinction between the quantum andclassical field theoretic predictions for the photoelectric effect,Phys. Rev. D, 9 (1974) pgs.853-860. Clauser used an elaborate scheme thatdelivered a gating pulse in a two-photon emissioncascade, and used PMT detectors. His results wereplots of the time difference between detections (tplots) in a featureless flat distribution, as expected

by quantum mechanics and as expected by chance.Recent writing by Clauser in Coherence andQuantum Optics VIII, ed. Bigelow (2003) pgs. 19-43 Early history of Bells theorem reviews hisbeam splitter test, showing he still maintains: Theexperiments results show that both quantummechanics and quantum electrodynamics hold true,and photons do not split at a half silvered mirror.

A similar experiment to that of Clauserswas performed P Grainger, G Roger, A Aspect, Anew light on single photon interferences, Ann. N Y

Acad. Sci. 480 (1986) pgs. 98-107, and I quotethem: quantum mechanics predicts a perfectanticorrelation for photodetections on both sides ofthe beam splitter, while any description involvingclassical fields would predict some amount ofcoincidences.

A review article featuring the work ofGrainger et al, by AL Robinson appeared in Science231 (1986) pg. 671, Demonstrating single photoninterference. In his opening statement I quote:One of the hallmarks of quantum mechanics is the

wave-particle duality of matter at the atomic level.Sixty years of theory and experiment provide noreason to doubt the proposition despite the strangeconsequences that can follow. This was anarticle about an experiment with light, yet it clearly

implied a wave-particle duality for matter.There are patents, such as 06,188,768issued to IBM on Feb. 13, 2001, that depend on thequantum mechanical interpretation of these priorart beam splitter experiments. I quote from thispatent: This is possible because single photonscannot be split into smaller pieces (intercepted ordiverted photons simply wont arrive at theintended destination) (parenthesis in original).

Obviously a great investment has beenmade by the industrial and scientific communities

in the idea that light is photons, and that it is notpossible to break chance in the beam splitter test.I have found no evidence in the scientific literatureof any measurement that violates quantummechanics or the principle of the photon in anymanner remotely similar to the method I havedeveloped and describe in this disclosure. To myknowledge, there is no prior art in any method ofmeasurement based upon the failure of quantummechanics. Quantum mechanics has never beforebeen shown to fail for light in such a convincingmanner as I will show. The only prior art insupport of my method is theoretical.

A classical alternative to quantization, asapplied to light, was called the loading theory.The earliest works I could find on the loadingtheory are from what is known as Plancks secondtheory. The history of Max Plancks secondtheory is described in T KuhnsBlack-Body theoryand the Quantum Discontinuity 1894-1912 (1978) pg. 235. In Plancks Eine neueStrahlungshypothese of 1911, an article found ina collection of Plancks works PhysikalischeAbhandlungen und Vortrge (1958) volume 2, heintroduces a quantity of energy ethat can have anyvalue between 0 and h, where h is Plancksconstant and is electromagnetic frequency.Planck uses this e in his derivation of the black body distribution Planck modeled that lightabsorbers could have any initial energy up to athreshold of energy hLater in his book TheTheory of Heat Radiation, a Dover translation ofhisWarmestrahlung of 1913, Planck clarifies his


3/34

model by stating on pg. 153 Now, since in the lawof absorption just assumed the hypothesis of quantahas as yet found no room, it follows that it mustcome into play in some way or other in theemission of the oscillator, and this is provided for

by the hypothesis of the emission of quanta.Plancks quanta were only at the point of emission.Planck then explains an oscillator will or willnot emit at an instant when its energy has reachedan integral multiple of e. This is Plancksthreshold concept. Kuhn describes how Planck hadlater abandoned this theory of continuousabsorption and explosive emission. The only otherwork I could find on the loading theory was by PDebye and A Sommerfeld in Theorie deslichtelektrischen Effektes vom Standpunkt des

Wirkungsquantums Ann. d. Physik41 (1913) pg.78, where they calculate how an electron would bedriven by a light field until the electron escaped.The loading theory was mentioned in Compton andAllisons bookX-Rays in Theory and Experiment(1935) pg. 47, and Millikans bookElectrons ( +and) (1937) pg. 253.

We were warned against light quanta bymany greats in physics. I quote my translation ofHA Lorentz from Die Hypothese der Lichtquanten Physik. Zeitschrift, 11 (1910) pg.

349: Light quanta which move concentrated in asmall space and always remain undivided arecompletely out of the question.

BACKGROUND OF THEINVENTION

INTRODUCTION

This invention relates to transcending thefollowing general assumption in physics: anabsorption event that releases a quantity of energy isdue to a particle of that same quantity of energy being incident upon the absorber immediately preceding the absorption event. A subtle shift inunderstanding physics in terms of thresholds insteadof quanta is required. My theoretical work is anextension of Plancks loading theory where heintroduced the threshold concept.

My method is based upon a new theoreticaland experimental physics that I have developed.The practical application of this new physics is anew form of spectroscopy in physicalmeasurement that reveals information never before

available. In its essence my method is a way toshow that we need to replace a quantummechanical probability wave with a physicalwave. I have successfully applied this method tothe beam splitter test, which has been claimed toprove that the electromagnetic field is quantized,as described above in prior art. In all previous beam splitter tests, there has been no evidencecontradicting the idea that a quantum of energygoes either one way or the other at a beam splitter.Using gamma rays in the beam splitter test, using

certain radioisotope sources and high resolutiondetectors, and exhaustively eliminating sources ofartifact, I found the rate of detecting coincidenceswill break chance. This implies that a singlespontaneous decay emits a gamma ray thatradiates classically and that an energy less than theoriginally emitted h can gamma-trigger twodetection events in coincidence. I call myviolation of quantum mechanics the unquantumeffect.

In a practical application the first step is to

confirm that coincidence rates surpass a calculatedchance rate. The second step is to measure theextent to which the ratio of the two rates exceedsunity and responds to modification of an appliedcondition. When the ratio exceeds unity,detection events in coincidence can generate apulse to gate the capture of pulse amplitude datafrom one of the detectors. These coincidence-gated pulse amplitude plots can revealRayleigh/Compton scattering ratios to determine ifthe gamma ray interacts with a stiff or flexiblecharge-wave in a material under study. If thegamma ray can split to trigger two events, it cantrigger higher numbers of events, and reading thismultiplicity is another mode of measure. Severalsuch modes have been tested. The variety ofgeometries, detectors, modes of detection,conditions imposed on the scatterer, and chemicalstates of the source makes for a very richspectroscopy. This spectroscopy can serve toprobe atomic bonds and study the nature of gammarays as classical waves, and is useful in both


4/34

fundamental investigations in physics and practicalapplications in material science.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

It is very important that I take the time andspace to include the historical and theoreticalcomponents that have led to my discovery.Without this background it is easy to falsely assumethat my findings do not make sense in the contextof what has been taught in modern physics. Toshow that the physics behind this invention isreasonable I will derive equations for the Comptonand photoelectric effects without resort to energyquantization, and I will reveal misleading ideasfound in most physics textbooks.

Schrdinger first described a wave-orientedderivation of the Compton effect, and it is welldescribed in Compton and Allisons book, X-Raysin Theory and Experiment (1935). The algebra isthe same as my derivation below except I removean important difficulty by defining a differentwavelength. Compton describes an electron-waveBragg type diffraction grating with planes separatedby deBroglie wavelength composed of standingwaves of the wave function . In the light-chargeinteraction the Bragg grating recoils causing a

Doppler shift in the Bragg reflected electromagneticwavelength. In that Bragg reflection model theyuse a stationary frame component of the standingwave. However, there is no experimentaljustification toward modeling a stationary frame of comparable amplitude to the recoiling component, which together could generate anappreciable standing wave. Such a laboratoryframe charge-wave can be going in any directionsuch that its addition to the forward componentcharge-wave would create a very weak plane of

standing wave to reflect light. My model postulates, with experimental justification aftermaking this postulate, that there is a fundamentalnonlinearity in a medium that creates envelopesof charge-wave, and that this envelope has thewavelength:

g = (h/me)/vg , Eq. (3)

where g is the wavelength of an envelope of,

and vg is the velocity of the charge-wave envelope.Eq. (3) looks like the deBroglie equation butdiffers in the meaning of its terms. Numericallyme the same as the mass of the electron, but I ask

that it be viewed temporarily as the mass of a threedimensional envelope of charge-wave. Later Ishow why h/me is written together. deBrogliesequation uses the wavelength of the wave,where inEq. (3) I use the length of an envelope ofthe wave. In GP Thomsons book, TheWaveMechanics of Free Electrons (1930) pg. 127, in ananalysis of work by CG Darwin, he states: observing the heterodyne waves instead of theoriginal wave train. It does not, however, affectquestions of wave-length or of the motion of theoriginal particles. Here the expression for themotion of the particles may be understood in theusual quantum mechanical sense as detectionevents. GP Thomson had considered the envelopeinterpretation, of which I have developed, andfound it consistent with charge diffractionexperiments. However, in exploring the works ofDarwin, Thomson, and others, no one used a grouplength in the wave-length equation; deBrogliesversion used the wave length of.

My use of forward moving wave groupsimplied by Eq. (3) removes the stationary framecomponent required to create standing waves. Ido use a standing wave model in the atom, but theatom is not needed for Compton scattering. To beaccelerated by an incident x-ray in one direction Imodel electrical charge to be free from or in aloose bond with the atom. Bragg reflection fromstanding waves of in charge of atomic bondsalso explains Rayleigh scattering, where there is nowavelength shift. We use the standard Bragg

diffraction equation L

= 2d sin(/2). Here L

isthe wavelength of light and g is the wavelength ofa charge-wave group. Solve for d in the BraggEq. and insert in Eq. (3), realizing the spacing ofthe diffraction grating d is the length of chargebeats:g = d= L/2sin(/2) = h/(mevg). Solve for

vg and insert it in the Doppler shift equation L/L

= (vg/c) sin(/2). Simplify using sin2 = (1

cos2/2 to yield L = (h/mec)(1 cos), theCompton effect equation. The Compton effect is


5/34

popularly taught using conservation of particlemomentum to convey that this effect is strongevidence for particles. The only thing remotelyparticle-like in the above derivation were the h andme terms. Notice the Compton equation contains

ratio h/me = Qh/m. This ratio, and similar ratios ofh, e, and m, are always present describing waveproperty experiments on charge. The ratio allowsaction and mass to individually become less dense,to thin-out, while the ratio itself is preserved. Wedo not measure h orme in this experiment; only the

ratio Qh/m. So the message of the experiment

should be written L = (Qh/m /c)(1 cos). Tosummarize my version of the loading theory, natureexpresses particle-like properties when the wavereaches the h threshold value, and expresses thewave properties by keeping this Q ratio constant asthe wave spreads out. If we go back to Plancks1911 paper and use action instead of energy as thevariable that reaches a threshold, the results of hisderivation will be the same.

In my search, all attempts to generate thephotoelectric effect equation have used the conceptof quantization of energy in the electromagneticfield, the photon. The photon model of EinsteinOn a heuristic point of view concerning the production and transformation of light (titletranslated)Ann. d. Phys. 17 (1905) pg. 132, gainedpopularity because the photoelectric effect equationfits experiment. If a model generates an equationthat fits experiment, it does not eliminate the possibility that another model can generate thesame equation. However, our textbooks alwaysuse particle models to derive the photoelectric andCompton effects, and then use experimentalconfirmation of the equation to attempt to provethat the effect requires the particle model.Sommerfeld in his book Wave Mechanics (1930)

pg. 178 describes Einsteins photoelectric effect lawas not actually derived. To my knowledge, noone has linked the photoelectric equation to thedeBroglie equation in any derivation similar tomine, as I show below.

To show that a particle model is notrequired, my derivation uses the charge-waveenvelope model. This model is also similar to adescription found in Schrdingers famous paperQuantization as a problem of proper values,

Annalen der Physik (4), vol. 79 (1926). TheBalmer equation of the hydrogen spectrum revealsthat the light frequency L is the result of thedifference between two frequency terms . In itssimplest form the Balmer equation can be

expressed as:

L = 1 . Eq. (4)

From these difference frequencies, plusSchrdingers suggestion that light interacts withthe beats, I use a trigonometric identity:

total = 1 + 2 = cos2[(x/1) 1t] +cos2[(x/2) 2t] =

2cos2[(x/a) a t)] cos2[(1/)x/2 t/2]

where the second term in the right hand side is amodulator wave at frequency that shapes thefirst term, an inner average a wave. From thismodel, we count the two beats (groups) of permodulator wave and realize the modulator wavefrequency equals the light frequency: =L . This is all done just to show that thefrequency of two beats of charge envelope fit thefrequency of a light wave, where light is themodulator term in the trigonometric identity. Interms of frequency:

L = g . Eq. (5)

For anything periodic, including beats,velocity equals frequency times wavelength.

SubstituteEq. (4) and Eq. (5) into vg= gg to get:

mevg2= hL Eq. (6)

which is the equation for the photoelectric effect asit would occur at the atomic scale. The term forescaping a potential is an obvious refinement.

The photoelectric effect experiment doesnot actually deliver all the information expressedin Eq. (6). We may measure frequency andvelocity, or equivalently we may measurefrequency and electrical potential, but we borrowthe electron charge e or its mass me from differentexperiments. The message of the photoelectriceffect experiment, independent of otherexperiments, must be written:


6/34

vg2= Qh/mL Eq. (7)

where Qh/m = h/me. When the wave spreads in freespace we only read the various ratios of action,mass, and charge in our experiments. In free space

the Q ratios are the constants, and h, me, and e aremaximums that we have individually decipheredonly through experiments using condensed matter.SimilarlyEq. (3) should be written g = Qh/mvg, toaccount for the spreading wave and a mechanismfor the loading effect. The Q ratios I mentionedare Qh/m = h/me, Qe/m = e/me , and Qe/h = e/h. Inwave experiments with associated equationscontaining these ratios, we only measure the Qratio.

Experimental evidence of the unquantumeffect shown in this disclosure would not bedetectable if electromagnetic energy was generallyquantized. The theory I developed above, withenergy thresholded by matter (energy with rest-mass) instead of being generally quantized, led meto predict the design of experiments in thisdisclosure. The threshold concept explains thespreading wave by allowing a thinning-out ofcharge, mass, and action, keeping them in proportion, while explaining particle-like

absorption by threshold events. In contrast,quantization requires a nonphysical wave functionthat exceeds the speed of light.

In developing the concept of a waveassociated with particles, deBroglie derived hisfamous relation

h = mpvp, Eq. (8)where mp is total relativistic particle mass, vp is

particle velocity, and is phase wavelength of a

matter wave function . After Eq. (8) wasendorsed by Einstein, used by Schrdinger, andshown to be consistent with electron diffractionexperiments, the equation was routinely used. Themixture of wave and particle terms in Eq. (8)inescapably preserves the conceptual difficulties ofwave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.Intimately linked to the derivation of Eq. (8),deBroglie assumed a matter frequency using therelations:

p = mpc2 = h Eq. (9)where p is mass-equivalent energy plus kineticenergy of a particle. Notice that this association ofh with a matter-frequency is very different from

its use connected to any experiment; we nevermeasure this matter frequency. When h entersanalysis of black body, photoelectric, Comptoneffect, and other experiments, h relates to kineticenergy or momentum. The link between Plancksconstant and mass-equivalent energy has onlyentered our conceptual framework through thisgreat leap of faith made at Eq. (9). With thisoverview, our experiments are telling us that h isreally about kinetic energy, not mass-equivalentenergy. From deBroglies early books, such asAn

Introduction to the Study of Wave Mechanics(1930), one can see that Eq. (9) came from asymmetry argument using the wave-particledualistic model of the photoelectric effect as astarting point. Using Eqs. (8) and (9), put and into v= . This leads to

vpv= c2 Eq. (10)

where v is phase velocity of a probabilistic

matter wave. Alternatively, one can usedimensional analysis on the Lorentztransformation of time to extractEq. (10) to deriveEq. (8) However, this only works if one fails todistribute the 1/(1 vp2/c2)1/2 term. For arbitrarilyslow particles, Eq. (10) implies arbitrarily fastvelocities. A stationary particle implyinginfinite velocity should have warned physiciststhat there was something very wrong with thederivation of the deBroglie equation and quantummechaincs. Instead of taking a warning, Eq. (10)

is used often in our modern textbooks and famousliterature to show is not physical; see forexample M BornAtomic Physics (1935) pg. 89. Ifwe assume the wave is not just a puremathematical convenience (if we assume aphysical ), and any version of special relativity,the specific form of eitherEq. (8) or (9) or bothmust be abandoned.

Returning to the Compton effect, a famoustest was the experiment of Bothe & Geiger, where


7/34

an x-ray beam interacting with hydrogen ismeasured for coincident electron and x-ray photoelectron events. The experiment wasintended to test if a wave model developed byBohr, Kramers and Slater could serve as an

alternative to quantum mechanics. The theory ofBohr et al was about spherical x-ray wave frontsthat induced electron events on a statistical basiswhereby momentum was only conserved on theaverage and not for each electron event. Thestatistical nature of the theory predicted thatelectron events would not synchronize to photoelectron events. The analysis by Bothe andGeiger of their experiment showed that the rate ofsynchronized events happened more often thanchance, but not as often as would be expected from

a purely particle model either. The partial particle-like results of the Bothe-Geiger experiment wasenough to shoot down the Bohr et al model, and allwritings afterward took on an even stronger particle-biased attitude. From examining theoriginal work in German, the assessment by Botheand Geiger was only reservedly in favor of theparticle model of Compton, since their data showedthat only sometimes the events are synchronized,and mostly they are not. From the Bothe-Geigerexperiment, approximately only one in 2000 eventswere simultaneous before calculating detectorinefficiency, and the corrected rate is 1/11. Ifparticles were the cause this rate would be muchhigher. Many experiments have been done toresearch simultaneity in the Compton effect.Except for the 1936 work of Shankland, "Anapparent failure of the photon theory of scattering," Physical Review 49 (1936) pg. 8, all worksthereafter, as evidenced by a review article byBernstein and Mann, "Summary of recentmeasurements of the Compton effect," AmericanJournal of Physics 24 (1956) pg. 445, missed the point, and concentrated instead on how manynanoseconds within which a pair of events aresimultaneous. My research found no report laterthan 1936 gave any number for the degree ofsimultaneity among electron-photon events.

Importantly, our literature is flooded withcommentary on the results of this experiment thatfalsely report a one-to-one correspondence betweenphoton and electron events. A similar situationpersists in the way the scientific community has

misrepresented the message of the data of theCompton-Simon experiment.

Here I will show that data from Bothe,Geiger, "Uber das Wasen des Comptoneffekts," Z.Phys. 26 (1924) pg. 44, fits my wave model. The

electron detection rate was 6 e/s = Ia, but thisdetector was 200 times more efficient than the x-ray detector. The window of simultaneity was1 ms. Using the equation for shot noise In =(2Iae/)1/2,

In = [(2)(6 e/s) / (103 e/s)]1/2 = 115e/s.Eq.(11)This gives Ia/In = 6/115, 20 times more

noise current than the average current.Accounting for the factor of 200 detector

inefficiency gives 4000 events/coincidence. Sinceeach detector picked up only half a radiatedsphere, divide by two to get 2000events/coincidence, which matches data from theexperiment. Shot noise shows that the observedsimultaneity is what would be expected from thistype of beating spreading wave. Detectorinefficiency or multiple scatterings have notaccounted for the low coincidence rate.

The issue of simultaneity in the Comptoneffect is a good example of how a particle-biased

mindset has influenced the transmission ofinformation from experiment to our textbooks. Ina paper by Compton and Simon, "Directed quantaof scattered x-rays,"Physical Review 26 (1925) pg.289, in their abstract they write: "It has been shown by cloud expansion experiments previouslydescribed, that for each recoil electron produced,an average of one quantum of x-ray energy isscattered by the air in the chamber." Amazingly,even Compton in his Scientific American article,"What things are made of" Feb. 1929, p. 110,and

most authors afterwards, did not accurately relaythe message of this experiment to us, saying thatmomentum is conserved in each detector event,like macroscopic balls. A billiard-like model isunfounded because the average nature of the effectwas demonstrated by the high rate of non-simultaneous events recorded in both theCompton-Simon and the Bothe-Geigerexperiments.

I will only mention here some of my otherequally strong analyses where I have shown the


8/34

charge-wave works and quantum mechanics leavesquestions. I derived Plancks black bodydistribution using charge beats instead of standingwaves of light. Most of our textbooks use astanding wave of light model to derive the Planck

distribution, even though Planck did his derivationusing Hertzian oscillators, not light, as stated in his1906 Theorie Der Warmestrahlung, and all his books. The fact that cosmic microwave background radiation obeys the black bodydistribution makes it clear that standing waves oflight cannot possibly be at play. There are nomirrors making the standing waves. Such a thingwould require the whole universe to act as anabsurd perfect laser cavity. Further analyses ofmine has addressed the folly of assuming charge

must be quantized in free space, based uponMillikans oil drop observation of quantized chargein a macroscopic oil drop. Also, the charge-wavemodel derives antimatter by reversing the phase ofthe wave within the envelopes. It is important tomention these flaws in quantum mechanicalarguments because physicists are convinced thatquantum mechanics must be true, and my discoveryshows how it is not true.

The most common and most importantmisleading idea to be found in our literature

concerns response time in the photoelectric effect.The treatment given in the popular textFundamentals of Physicssecond edition extendedby Halliday and Resnick (H&R) is typical of manytextbooks and articles. Given a light source and thesize of the atom one can calculate the time that theatom should take to accumulate enough energy toeject an electron. The student calculates somenumber of hours, and the text then cites a muchshorter response time on the order of a nanosecondobtained experimentally. The experimental sourcemost often cited is Lawrence and Beams (L&B),"The element of time in the photoelectric effect,"Physical Review 32 (1928) pg. 478. The lightflux L&B used was not stated. Our textbooksexplain that no time lag has ever been detected.From L&Bs data, their minimum response timewas about 3 nanoseconds, and the average responsetime was about 30 ns. There are two problems.Since L&B did not report incident light flux, onecannot compare their response time to arbitrarygivens in a homework problem. The other problem

is that by H&R stating no time lag has ever beendetected, it falsely represents the results of theexperiment, which does report an average time lag.An average time lag is consistent with the idea of apre-loaded state, but this idea was not given a

chance when they denied any form of time lag.Consideration of the pre-loaded state seems tohave been banished from our literature ever sinceMillikan considered it in Electrons (+ and);since then every book or article I could find iswritten with the unstated assumption that anaccumulation starts from zero when the light isfirst applied. If a pre-loaded state is allowed toexist it is easy to use a classical calculation, theaverage response time, and conservation of energyto calculate a reasonable incident energy flux in

the L&B experiment. Authors should write: nominimum time lag has ever been detected. Bystating that no time lag exists when in fact anaverage time lag does exist, textbook authors haveeffectively propagandized photons.

With this above outline of long standingconceptual problems in quantum mechanics, errorsperpetuated in our textbooks, and seeing that thephotoelectric effect and the Compton effect can bederived with waves, my evidence for anunquantum effect disclosed here is made

reasonable in the context of past physics.COMPARISON TO PRIOR ART

In Givens 1946 beam splitter test, aCoolidge x-ray tube was used, which at anynormal operating rate would generate manyoverlapping Gaussian pulses, each with helectromagnetic energy. Such envelopesattenuated by distance and apertures wouldaverage out to a smooth energy flux, greatly

lowering the chances that a hpulse could triggercoincidences surpassing the chance rate. Thewide-band emitters and detectors used by Givens,would further obscure a classical pulse response.Givens used Geiger-Mueller counters which do notdeliver a pulse proportional to the electromagneticfrequency of the incident radiation. Furthermore,no pulse amplitude analysis or discriminator levelswere reported. My method takes advantage ofmodern detectors that deliver a pulse amplitudesubstantially proportional to electromagnetic


9/34

frequency to establish the relationship betweensource and detection events. Without establishingthis relationship between source and detectorevents, the resulting measured events in bothdetectors will not show coincidences due to

different times that a tuned microscopic absorptionoscillator would reach threshold in the presence of awide range of frequencies. Furthermore, mymethod takes advantage of pulse-like single hemission from radioactive decay. Also I use a lowcount rate to prevent overlapping classical pulsesfrom smoothing the pulse-like spatial and temporalquality of the energy flux. The test by Givens wasinadequate to make a quantum/classical distinction.

Clauser, and all others attempting this beamsplitter test have made a crucial error concerning

the PMT. Even if the source of light ismonochromatic, the PMT will generate a widedistribution of pulse amplitudes. The typical pulseamplitude distribution of a PMT is about as wide asthe amplitude at the peak of this distribution. Inmy extensive search of tests of Einsteins beamsplitter thought experiment, no publication hadspecified the range of pulse amplitudes used.However, experimenters always use discriminatorsto eliminate the small and frequent pulses usuallyattributed to noise. By eliminating the smaller

pulses in the pulse amplitude distributionit greatlylowers the possibility of detecting coincidencesallowed for by the loading theory. Alternatively, ifsuch discriminators are not used, it is not fair withrespect to the photon model. Essentially, this typeof experiment cannot make a fair classical/quantumdistinction using optical light and PMTs becausethe PMT delivers too wide a distribution of pulseamplitudes in response to monochromatic light.

Another important oversight in Clausersexperiment is that he describes using a polarizing

beam splitter. Data from CA Kocher and EDCommins, Polarization correlation of photonsemitted in an atomic cascade, Physical ReviewLetters 18 (1967) pgs. 575-577, show that single hemissions from atoms are polarized. A randomlypolarized pulse of light will be unequally split by a polarizing beam splitter, thereby lowering theopportunity for coincidences. This would unfairlyeliminate the classical alternative, the experimentwas supposed to distinguish from quantum

mechanics. This flaw, plus false assumptionsconcerning the PMT, voids Clausers result.

In my research of over a hundred articlesdirectly referencing Clauser's 1974 paper,including Grainger et als 1986 rework, and

Clausers own recent articles, these importanttechnical oversights concerning the detectorresolution and polarized beam splitter haveremained uncorrected.

NON-OBVIOUSNESS OF THE INVENTION

One would think that it would be obvious totry the beam splitter test with gamma rays to showhow to defy quantum mechanics. Einsteins beamsplitter thought experiment has been well known

since 1927. However, the way to select, adjust,beam, split, and detect an energy that obeys E =h, and split it in a manner that breaks chance hasnever before been accomplished. This situationhas persisted even though many brilliantresearchers have objected to the strange ways ofquantum mechanics and have searched for ways todisprove it. No one has previously consideredusing the most particle-like light to show that lightis not particles. Everyone takes it as a fact thatgamma rays are photons. For example, a well

respected book edited by K Siegbahn Alpha Betaand Gamma-ray Spectroscopy (1962) contains thearticle by CM Davison Interaction of-radiationwith matter with the opening line Theinteraction of -radiation with matter ischaracterized by the fact that each -ray photon isremoved individually from the incident beam in asingle event. If gamma rays were photons, myexperiments would not break chance.

No one has previously developed anyviable alternative to the photon model that can

account for the particle-like effects. To visualizea way that classical light can break chance in the beam splitter test requires an understanding: (1)how an electromagnetic emission could be emittedin a pulse like fashion to defy chance in the beamsplitter experiment, and (2) how a preloaded statecould deliver the illusion that a particle hit there.It requires understanding how an electromagneticpulse of initial energy h could split as a wave andcause coincidences. It requires understandinghow a set of oscillators at random levels of a


10/34

partially loaded state could be fed energy in acontinuous fashion, and how the time to reach athreshold of fullness in a loading mechanism would be random. To break chance, it requiresunderstanding how a classical electromagnetic

pulse with energy less than or equal to h may bepartially absorbed by separate resonant absorbingcenters, and then trigger coincident loading tothreshold hat these absorbing centers at ratessurpassing chance. To solve this very difficult puzzle required all the theory I outlined in theTHEORETICAL BACKGROUND section.

From my theoretical work and historicalanalysis up to year 2000, I knew that a sourceemitting strong individual h bursts was needed;with that knowledge it was obvious to try gamma

rays. My early attempts to search for theunquantum effect with the simple idea of usinggamma rays were failures. My first gamma rayattempt using the radioisotope Na22 was totallyinappropriate because it creates what are called truecoincidences. Tests with Cs137 and other populargamma ray sources only gave chance. Theunquantum effect only showed itself after I haddeveloped the method to a much more sophisticatedlevel involving the choice of specific properties ofthe source, detector, and the relationship of source

and detector to each other. There were manyobstacles to overcome: (1) in choosing a gammasource, there must not be other gamma, or otherforms of radiation, emitted simultaneously with thegamma frequency under study that has an equal orhigher frequency, and there are very few availablegamma sources that emit one characteristic gammaray; (2) there are very few gamma sources availablein the spectral section of high photoelectric effectefficiency for the high resolution detectors; (3) aninitially unrecognized contaminant in Cd109 caused

a peak at exactly 3 times the fundamental 88 keV ofCd109 and emitted frequencies that hid an expected2 x 88 keV anomalous sum peak; (4) the highestresolution detectors have lower photoelectricefficiency, so in a situation that a scientist wouldnormally think they see better, they see worse; (6) afluorescence from lead fell at nearly the same keVas the 88 keV of Cd109, which could confuseinterpretation; (7) I had no support from anyphysicist because they all knew gamma rays actedlike particles.

There is no way to explain my findings withquantum mechanics. No one else has ever brokenchance in the beam splitter test to show particlesmust not be the cause, no one else has everperformed the beam splitter test using gamma rays,

and of course no one else has ever used such adiscovery to launch a new form of spectroscopy.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THEFIGURES

Fig. 1 shows the pulse amplitude responseof a typical photomultiplier tube responding tovisible light.

Fig.2

show annotated pulse amplitudespectra, using Cd109, Co57, and a high resolutiongermanium type detector.

Fig. 3 show annotated pulse amplitudespectra, using Cd109, Co57, and a sodium iodidetype detector to study sum-peak details.

Fig. 4 shows a preferred embodiment of thisinvention with one detector in front of another intandem geometry.

Fig. 5 shows detail of detectors used forselected tandem geometry experiments.

Fig. 6 shows a section of screen capturefrom my oscilloscope of a coincidence time plot(tplot), using Cd109, and detectors described byFig. 5 in tandem geometry.

Fig. 7 show coincidence time plots, usingCd109, Cs137, a signal generator, and sodiumiodide detectors in tandem geometry.

Fig. 8 show coincidence time plots, usingCs137, and sodium iodide detectors in tandemgeometry to study effects of distance andattenuation.

Fig. 9 show coincidence time plots, usingCo57, and sodium iodide detectors in tandemgeometry to study effects of distance.


11/34

Fig. 10 shows a coincidence-gated pulseamplitude plot (histogram), using Cd109, a highresolution germanium detector, and a sodiumiodide detector in tandem geometry. A singlesspectrum of Cd109 is also shown.

Fig. 11A shows a section of screen capturefrom my oscilloscope of coincidence time plots,using three preparations of Cd109 in differentcrystalline states, and sodium iodide detectors intandem geometry to study effects due to chemicalstate of the source.

Fig. 11B shows a section of screen capturefrom my oscilloscope of coincidence-gated pulseamplitude plots, using the same three preparations

of Cd109 used in Fig.11A

, and sodium iodidedetectors in tandem geometry to study effects due tochemical state of the source.

Fig. 12 shows a preferred embodiment ofthis invention in beam splitter geometry equipped toadjust the angular orientation of a detector and theangular orientation of a material scatterer understudy.

Fig. 13 show coincidence time plots, usingCd109, and two sodium iodide detectors in beamsplitter geometry to study a silicon materialscatterer at two angular orientations.

Figs. 14A and 14B show the relative sizeand orientation of two high resolution germaniumdetectors, source, and magnet assembly used in thetests of Figs. 15 and 16.

Fig. 15 show coincidence-gated pulseamplitude plots, using Cd109, and two highresolution germanium detectors in beam splittergeometry to study a ferromagnetic scatterer indifferent magnetic fields.

Fig. 16 shows a section of screen capturefrom my oscilloscope of coincidence-gated pulseamplitude plots, using Cd109, and two highresolution germanium detectors in beam splittergeometry to study a diamagnetic scatterer indifferent magnetic fields.

Fig. 17 shows the beam splitter geometryrelating to plots in Figs. 18 and 19.

Fig. 18 shows a section of screen capturefrom my oscilloscope of coincidence-gated pulse

amplitude plots, using Cd109, and two highresolution germanium detectors in beam splittergeometry to study an aluminum scatterer atdifferent temperatures.

Fig. 19 shows a section of screen capturefrom my oscilloscope of coincidence time plots,using a salt state Cd109, a metallic state Cd109,and two sodium iodide detectors in beam splittergeometry to study differences from these twosources upon a germanium scatterer.

Fig. 20 shows annotated pulse amplitudespectra, using a sodium iodide detector to study thesame two sources used in the test of Fig. 19.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION

My earliest successful evidence of theunquantum effect dates from August 8, 2001, with

hundreds of experimental variations and upgradesperformed since then. This invention relates to themethod of achieving, measuring, and applying theunquantum effect in physical measurement.

A distinguishing element my methodprovides over prior art is to use a detector withsubstantial pulse amplitude resolution in responseto the type of radiation being measured. This phrase, substantial pulse amplitude resolution,implies two things: (1) the pulse amplitude is

proportional to the electromagnetic frequency ofthe incident radiation, and (2) the distribution ofpulse amplitudes in response to a given frequencyof incident radiation is narrower than the mean pulse amplitude. Historically, experiments withthe DuMond curved crystal spectrometer design of1927 have confirmed the relationship betweendetector pulse amplitude and electromagneticfrequency. As mentioned in the COMPARISON TOPRIOR ART section, a photomultiplier tube usedwith visible light does not deliver a good enough


12/34

pulse amplitude resolution. Fig.1 shows a typicalpulse amplitude distribution AA of a PMT from adata book from Phillips Photonics, Photomultipliertubes principles and applications, (1994) pg. 2-8,with my annotations added. This distribution was

similar to my own test with a red laser and a PMT.Fig. 1 graphs pulse amplitude 18 verses counts 19,with the peak of the distribution at pulse amplitudeEmean 20, and the full width of the distributionEwindow 21. The boundaries of Ewindow 21 aretypical positions for discriminator settings, alsoknown as a single channel analyzer (SCA) window.Span Emean22 of pulse amplitudes up to pointEmean20 is about the same distance in this case as spanEwindow21. Here we see what a typical experimentusing a PMT must work with. If the window was

set so that Ewindow>Emean in a beam splitter test,events in coincidence would be recorded too easilyand would overshadow coincidences gamma-triggered by a classical pulse in a loading scheme;it would not be fair to the loading model. On theother hand, if we were to assume a photon modeland were to set the SCA window narrower so thatEwindow < Emean , too many events that could have been triggered by a photon would have beeneliminated from being detected in coincidence; itwould not be fair to the photon model. In other

words, a beam splitter test cannot make adistinction between a probability wave and aclassical wave using a detector/source combinationunless Ewindow < Emean . This is the importanceof substantial pulse amplitude resolution. A PMTdoes not have substantial pulse amplituderesolution. The detector that I usually use is aNaI(Tl) scintillator coupled to a PMT; thesedetectors working above ~ 40 keV satisfy thiscriteria and do have substantial pulse amplituderesolution. This is the most important reason why

my method gives the opposite result compared tothe result of prior art. To my knowledge, no priorart attempt at the beam splitter test has used adetector with substantial pulse amplituderesolution; neither have they bothered to reportdiscriminator or SCA levels.

Indeed, there is great confusion over theinterpretation of what a PMT delivers. Physicistsgenerally think, to their great error, that the pulsedelivered by a PMT is proportional to the frequencyof the incident light; as evidence I quote RP

Feynman QED (1985) pg. 15: clicks ofuniform loudness are heard each time a photon of agiven color hits plate A. A distribution of clickloudness that is as wide as the mean loudness isnot a click of uniform loudness. This quote also

demonstrates the false assumption: a photon is athing existing prior to the detection event.The method of this disclosure specifies two

preferred embodiments that are currentlyfunctional in my laboratory. There are twogeometries described in my experiments andembodiments: a beam splitter geometry and atandem geometry. In tandem geometry, with onedetector in front of another, the first detectorperforms the function of both the beam splitter anddetector, and shows the effect more efficiently.

Several variations on the theme of splitting agamma ray using each of these geometries havebeen accomplished.

It is necessary to make clear that notationeV for electron volts, or keV for kiloelectron-volts,is used here only for convenience to the reader.eV is a photon concept. Where a conventional physicist would describe photon energy, I maydescribe frequency or detector pulse amplitudeinstead. If gamma rays are not photons, weshould talk of frequency instead of energy. In

conventional physics his often used to describe a photon energy. However, in the context of thisdisclosure h is an energy proportional tofrequency: (a) in matter at a threshold, and (b) inan initially emitted burst of electromagneticenergy. In the context of this disclosure aquantum is an h of energy at an internal threshold,or at an initial release of light. After the quantumis released as light it does not remain quantized.An absorption or detection event is modeled as aresonant loading in an electronic oscillator,

whereby the event occurs when a threshold is metwithin the electronic oscillator at energy h. Mybeam splitter experiments with gamma rays show,it is not always the same pulse of energy hemitted from the source as the habsorbed at thedetector because it breaks chance.

Comparing a chance coincidence rateRcwith an experimentally measured coincidence rateRe, distinguishes between classical and quantummechanical models of light. If light reallyconsisted of photons, or equivalently, if light


13/34

always deposited itself in a photons worth ofenergy, it would be a quantum mechanical wavefunction that would split, and the particle wouldgo one way or another. After absorption the wavefunction would need to magically collapse. The

consensus among all experimental prior art works Ihave cited who have performed the beam splittertest, and surely among most physicists is: the onlysource of coincident detection events fromindividually emitted quanta is chance. Theembodiments demonstrateE = h applies to matteras a loading effect, andE = h cannot be due to aquantum mechanical property of light.

Two radiation sources have been foundhighly successful in measuring the unquantumeffect: 88 keV gamma rays from cadmium-109

(Cd109) and 122 keV gamma rays from cobalt-57(Co57). In both of these radioisotope sources,spontaneous nuclear decay is understood to occur inan electron capture process. Two detector typeshave been highly successful in detecting theunquantum effect: sodium iodide scintillatorcrystals doped with thallium, NaI(Tl), and high purity germanium (HPGe) detectors. Fig. 2 showsdetector pulse amplitude spectra taken in mylaboratory June 2003 using my HPGe detector, withscales pulse amplitude 25 and logarithmic scale of

counts 26. In most of my plots the vertical scale isoffset to superimpose many plots on the samehorizontal scale. The detector is a CANBERRAGR1520 reverse electrode type. To minimizebackground radiation, all measurements for spectraand plots reported in this disclosure were takenwithin a lead shield of my own fabrication: acylinder 12 inches diameter, 15 inches long, with 2to 3 inch walls of lead, lined with 2 mm of tin and 3mm copper at the inside walls. In the range 56 to324 keV the average background rate in the shield

was lowered to 1/31 of that read outside the shield.Fig. 2 show spectra ofbackground BA, and Cd109 BB. The 88 keV 30gamma ray from Cd109 is a characteristic detector pulse amplitude. We know gamma rays onlythrough characteristics revealed in experiments. Inthe physics of this disclosure, the atom emits aninitially directed classical pulse of electromagneticenergy at an electromagnetic frequency. Typicalemitted bandwidths are known from otherexperiments to be much narrower than the bin

widths of the spectra in my instruments. For thisCd109 characteristic gamma ray emission, thedetector responds with pulse amplitudes withinrange E32. From taking spectra like these onFig. 2 one can determine the electromagnetic

frequency of the gamma ray and rates at whichthey are produced, but one cannot conclude that aphoton left the atom and landed at the detector.

It was discovered that Cd109 is oftencontaminated with Cd113m (m = metastable) thatproduces a 264 keV peak34 and a continuum from88 to 264 keV. By using a later obtained sourceof Cd109 that was free of any detectable Cd113mand repeating a coincidence test, I confirmed thatthis contamination was not distorting coincidencecounts in my experiments using two detectors.

Cd113m did not create coincidences by Comptondownshifting or any other mechanism. An x-ray36 is also radiated by Cd109. A lower frequencyfrom such an x-ray cannot by any knownmechanism lend to producing coincidences nearthe 88 keV section. Tests with a 2 mm aluminumfilter to attenuate the x-ray showed no change inthe unquantum effect. Spectrum BC of Co57shows two gamma peaks, at 122 keV 46, and 136keV 48. Published energy level diagrams devisedfrom coincidence tests show there are separate

pathways for these two frequencies, which meansgamma rays 46, 48 occur independently. NaI(Tl)


14/34

detectors cannot resolve these 46, 48 peaks.Therefore a coincidence test using NaI(Tl)detectors windowed over both 46, 48 gammafrequencies can be treated as if only one h wasemitted at a time. Other high resolution detectors

such as Cadmium Zinc Telluride should also workwell.There are two important absorption

mechanisms in these discussed detector materials:the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect.For the two isotopes that the unquantum effecteasily reveals itself, it has been found that the photoelectric effect dominates. Most tests in thisdisclosure used a NaI(Tl) scintillator coupled to a photomultiplier tube. In sodium iodide scintillatordetectors reading 88 keV gamma rays emitted by

Cd109, the photoelectric effect dominates over theCompton effect by a factor of 18. However usingHPGe detectors this ratio is 4.6. This informationis from graphs published by NIST generated fromquantum mechanical calculations. This dominanceof the photoelectric effect is similar with 122 keVfrom Co57 when comparing the two detector types.Also, at 88 keV, NaI(Tl) detectors have a peak inoverall absorption efficiency. From studying this Ipredicted that the unquantum effect would be moreeasily seen with NaI(Tl) than HPGe detectors; this

tested true from examining sum-peaks in singledetectors and comparing them in both detectortypes.

The unquantumeffect is most easilyseen with a singledetector by carefullymeasuring the sum-peakthat is produced by pile-up of pulses. The sum-peak is found at twice

the pulse amplitude ofthe normal gamma ray.In this technique thedetector material servesthe purpose of detector, beam splitter, andcoincidence gate. The beam splits within the body of the detector.The summing of light pulses within the

scintillator serves the function of coincidence-gateelectronics explained for the preferredembodiments. Fig. 3 shows logarithmic spectra ofgamma ray emitting sources read with a 2 x 2 inchcylindrical BICRON brand NaI(Tl) detector read

with a commercial multichannel analyzer, and withthe sources placed at the top of the detector takenOctober 2004. Plots are of: ~5 Ci of contaminated Cd109 due to Cd113m at plot CA,~5 Ci of substantially pure Cd109 CB, ~5 CiCo57 CC, and background CD. Here we see howthe usual presence of Cd113 could easily hide ananomalously large sum-peak. A sum-peak isusually attributed to chance, and its amplitude ispredicted by calculating the chance sum-peak rate:

Rcp = 2R2

Eq. (12)

where is the time span of each pulse that piles up,andR is the rate at the peak of the distribution that piles up to cause this sum effect. There is somecontroversy in the literature over the accuracy ofthis equation and how to choose the value ofIhave circumvented this problem by doing anexperiment with Cs137 under conditions thatdisplay no unquantum effect, and used Eq. (12) tocalculate = 1.16x106 sec. The shape is

conserved with different amplitudes, so this timeconstant is also conserved.


15/34

The bin with the highest rateat 88 keV 58 in pure Cd109 gave R= 74.3/s. From Eq. (12), Rcp =0.0064/s. For the experimentallymeasured sum-peak rate, Re, an

average was taken in the markedsection 60 surrounding 2 x 88 keV,and an average of the background atthis spectral section was subtracted,giving Re = 0.064/s. The ratio of[measured sum-peak rate] / [chancesum-peak rate] gives the degree thatchance is exceeded, and iscalculated:Re/Rcp = 10 x chance.

Similarly for Co57,examining section 62 at 2 x 122

keV, the singles rate at 122 keV63, and gaveRe = 2(1.16 s)(67.8/s)2 = 10.7x103;Re/Rcp = 0.0107/0.00196 5.5 x chance. Thisroughly tracks the idea that the effect is due tophotoelectric dominance, which is less at 122 keV.These enormous spectral components cannot beexplained by any way one calculates the chancesum-peak. They have only been observed inCd109 and Co57, and are very easy to demonstrate.These sum-peak areas are shaped more like plateaus than peaks. In my research I explained

this shape by writing a simulation program thatinput the whole spectral region of characteristicgamma and Compton shifted components. Atypical SCA window used in my experiments isshown at E64 of Fig. 3.

A more convincing test is to use twodetectors one in front of the other, in tandem. In thistechnique the material of the first detector servesthe function of both detector and beam splitter. Thecomponents, and most of the techniques describedhere on using these components are well known in

the nuclear measurement industry. What is notknown is to understand how to implement thesestandard techniques to show that detections incoincidence are not caused by incident particles ofenergy. If they were thought of as particles ofenergy, an attempt to see two events in coincidence,when there should only be one, would be viewed asa blasphemous attempt to violate conservation ofenergy.

My assertion that my experiments are validforces a choice between scraping either particles of

energy, or conservation of energy. Of course formany good reasons, I uphold conservation ofenergy. The positive results of my techniqueforces the realization that these are not detectionsrelated to incident particles of energy at all, but areinstead a loading effect to a threshold of energywith a loading mechanism related to frequency.Emissions of energy remain as quanta, butthereafter can spread classically.

PREFERRED EMBODIMENT USING

TANDEM GEOMETRY

The preferred embodiment of Fig. 4delivers a robust unquantum effect. It is thesimplest to construct and describe, but not the leastexpensive to build. Specialized forms of thisembodiment may be readily devised by engineersfamiliar with nuclear measurement after studyingthis specific embodiment. The embodiment ofFig. 4 is useful for demonstrating and researchingthe unquantum effect under various conditions,

distances, and mixtures of source. A usefulapplication of this embodiment would be in theeducation industry to demonstrate the falsity of theconcept of radiant energy quantization. Due tothe popularity of photons, and the astoundingevidence this embodiment poses against photons,this is a large market.


16/34

The entire apparatus should be in a box linedwith at least 2 mm of sheet tin, not shown. Thiswas tested to be adequate, but the experiments inthis disclosure were all done in my lead shield. Inmost tests the unquantum effect is clearly apparentwithout the shield, but by lowering backgroundradiation the shield gives better results. A Cd109radiation source 68 of at least 1 Ci activity, inholder70 is mounted in tin collimator 72. Higheractivities than 10 Ci are not typically needed inthese tests, and such low level sources are available

without licensing restrictions. Different preparations of the isotope in salts of differentmixture or the isotope in a purified metal state have been found useful to study. The most versatilesource holder70 is a microcentrifuge tube whereinthe radioisotope may be most conveniently handledand prepared by starting with the radioisotope insolution, and condensing it to a small pellet underhigh acceleration to minimize residue sticking tothe walls. These radioisotopes are normallyavailable as a salt in dilute solution with water. The

detection hardware is best described in twochannels. Each channelhas a detector, preamplifier, shaping

amplifier, and SCAcircuit. Collimator 72serves to define cone 74of gamma rays aimedtoward channel 1scintillator 76.Collimator 72 ismounted on a lineartranslation stage 78 thatcan adjust the distance between the collimator

aperture and the face ofscintillator 76 overdistances ranging fromdirectly adjacent, totypically 6 inches. Thestrength of the sourcewill determine thethickness of material forcollimator 72, theduration of theexperiment, and thedistance between source

68 and scintillator76. For a 5 Ci Cd109 sourcea collimator designed with 5 mm walls of tinworks well. If higher frequency gamma sourcessuch as Cs137 are to be tested, a lead (Pb)collimator should be used. In some embodimentsthere are advantages to construct the collimatorwith an aperture liner (not shown) made of adifferent element. Copper lined with tin, and leadlined with tungsten have been tested.

Channel 1 scintillator76 must be speciallydesigned to be thin enough to allow at least 10% ofthe incident gamma rays to pass through. Themost appropriate design is to use a standardthallium doped sodium iodide scintillator, NaI(Tl),cut as a square thin slab approximately 40 mmlong and wide. The thickness is critical. Theexperiments for Figs. 8 and 9 have used this samepreferred embodiment design with a 4 mm thick x40 mm x 40 mm channel 1 detector. This workedwell with Co57 and Cs137 but was found to extendthe experiment time to about a day when using


17/34

Cd109. A 3 mm slab is recommended. The slabis packaged and encased in thin aluminum foil, asstandard in the nuclear measurement industry fordetecting gamma rays. Window 80 at the thin endof scintillator76 couples light to PMT 82 at its flat

photocathode window. Typically, PMT82

willhave a round face, and the drawing does notindicate the true width and length of such a PMT.Scintillator manufacturers can either make ascintillator with its own window 80, or can connectit directly to a photomultiplier tube in ahermetically sealed light tight unit. Channel 2scintillator84 is typically a standard 1.5 inchdiameter right cylindrical NaI(Tl) scintillator and isnormally purchased permanently connected to PMT86 (not drawn to scale). The aperture of collimator72

must be narrow enough such that cone74

doesnot extend an area larger than that of the far side ofscintillator84 for tests at the greatest extension oftranslation stage 78. Cone 74 need not be a cone,but can be a beam of any shape defining a solidangle of gamma rays emitted from collimator72.For just demonstrating that chance can be broken, acollimator is not necessary at all. The collimator isnecessary in more sophisticated experiments wherethe ratio of flux rates between the two detectors isrequired to remain constant. Another reason for

collimating is to reduce scatter within a surroundingshield that lowers radiation from background.Therefore narrowing the solid angle of the beam isoptional. The output signals from thephotomultipliers are fed to preamplifiers 88 and 90,to amplify the signal approximately a factor of 10and to limit the amplitude of signals to avoid signalartifacts.

The preamplifiers should be located as closeto the PMTs as practical, with a shorter wire thanthat represented in Fig. 4. I found that commercial

preamplifiers did not have this limiter feature, andthat such a feature was crucial at the preamplifierstage to avoid artifacts; so I designed and built thepreamplifier. The simplest method of constructingthe preamplifier is to use the LINEAR TECHNOLOGYCORP. LT1222 op-amp which includes the limiterfeature, in a conventional inverting amplifiercircuit. Signals from each channel are then fed toshaping amplifiers 92, 94 standard in the nuclearmeasurement industry to deliver shaped pulses thatwork in conjunction with timing type single

channel analyzers SCA1 96, SCA2 98 to deliverdigital timing pulses. The specific componentsfor the shaping amplifiers and SCAs used in myexperiments, and depicted in this embodiment, arethe ORTEC 460 shaping amplifier, and the ORTEC

551 timing SCA, both of which are nuclearinstrumentation modules in common use. Digitaloutput from SCA1 96 are counted by counter100,and digital output from SCA2 98 are counted bycounter102. Counts at counters 100, 102 not incoincidence are called singles. In the experiments,counter100 generates singles rateR1 and counter102 generates singles rate R2. Use of a digitalstorage oscilloscope DSO 104 with time analysisand histogram features such as the LECROYCORP.LT344 has been found to be the most versatile and

trustworthy method of collecting signals from theshaping amplifiers and SCAs for the remaininganalysis. Output of shaping amplifier92 isconnected to DSO-BNC 1 106 (BNC is aconnector type), output of shaping amplifier94 isconnected to DSO-BNC 2 108, output of SCA1 96is connected to DSO-BNC 3 110, and output ofSCA2 98 is connected to DSO-BNC 4 112. DSO104 monitors the analog shaped pulses at DSO-BNC 1 106 and DSO-BNC 2 108 in storage modefor the operator to observe and insure falselyshaped pulses occur less than 1%. DSO-BNC 2108 is also useful for collecting analog pulseamplitudes for coincidence-gated pulse amplitudeplots (histograms).

In preparation of taking coincidence data, apulse amplitude spectrum of Cd109 is taken bygating (triggering) the DSO at a low level fromDSO-BNC 1, and by setting the DSO to make aplot of maximums from the DSO-BNC 1 signal.After setting the DSO to gate on DSO-BNC 3 andrecord a plot of maximums from DSO-BNC 1, theupper level and lower level settings of window 114of SCA1 are adjusted in an iterative process.Windows 114 and 116 are adjusted with upperlevel and lower level knobs (not shown) on theSCAs. Similarly gating on DSO-BNC 4, window116 is adjusted. Window 114 is adjusted until thepulse amplitude plot shows only the characteristicgamma ray response E. An example of awindow width is shown at E64 Fig. 3. Window116 may be set similarly narrow for a texperiment. Window 114 operates on shaped


18/34

pulse 115, and window 116 operates on shapedpulse 117; these windows and pulses are onlyschematic of the operation inside the SCA circuits.

I call the histogram of times between pulsesfrom each channel a tplot; it can be set up from

the DSO parameter menu and uses the DSO smartgate (trigger) feature. A t plot obtains timinginformation from DSO-BNC 3 110 and DSO-BNC4 112. The DSO smart gate is set up to gate onDSO-BNC 3 only after DSO-BNC 4 has sensed apulse within tss of the pulse from DSO-BNC 3;this gate condition internally creates a coincidencetiming pulse. ts is a window of time for validcoincidences. In preparation for the t plot,adjustments on delay controls on SCA1 and SCA2,and a gate delay adjustment on the DSO must be

performed. The LT344 DSO histogram process118 internally creates tplot 120 in response to thecoincidence timing pulse. In experimentsexamining the spread in shaped pulse amplitudesfrom one shaping amplifier channel, usuallychannel 2 amplifier 94, that was gated from bothchannels in coincidence by the coincidence timing pulse, the LT344 DSO histogram process 122internally creates a coincidence-gated pulseamplitude plot 124.

The system can be fully automated if

counters 100, 102, and DSO 104 are equipped tocommunicate using the general purposeinstrumentation bus GPIB 126 for data collectionunder computer CPU 128 control. The demarkedset of electronics SET 130 is used to simplify thedescription of another preferred embodiment in Fig.12.

Much of the above technique describing SET130 for making t plots and coincidence-gatedpulse amplitude plots are standard procedure fornuclear physicists and engineers. Physicists are not

accustomed to the combination: examine a gammaspectrum, window a characteristic gamma peak,such as Fig. 3 E 64, and search for pulses incoincidence from two detectors responding toradiation within this same window E; that wouldviolate the principle of the photon.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS USING

TANDEM GEOMETRY

Many tests were performed with the sameelectronics as Fig. 4 but with different detectors

and source collimator. The detectors and sourceholder of Fig. 5 were used for the experiment ofFig. 6; otherwise electronics and description forpreferred embodiment of Fig. 4 apply. In Fig. 5source holder134 holds 5 Ci of Cd109 at its tipinside collimator136 made of tin. Collimator136had a hole to let through cone 138 of gamma raysto interact with two NaI(Tl) scintillators.Scintillator 140 of channel 1 was a 42 x 42 mmcylindrical well-type with a 17 mm cylindrical holethrough its side to accommodate collimator 136.

Cone 138 passed through a short wedge ofscintillator140 ranging from 3 to 5 mm of NaI(Tl)

scintillation material. Radiation of cone 138continued to channel 2 scintillator142, a 2 x 2 inch

BICRON brand NaI(Tl) with an integral PMT (notshown). This well-type scintillator140 was usedbecause it is easier to obtain than the thin slab ofFig. 4. Gamma rays in cone 138 must passthrough scintillator140 to get to scintillator142.

In the experiment for Fig. 6 performed July5, 2004, t plot DA using Cd109 gave goodresolution. Plot DB was a tplot with source andholder134 removed. For both plots the window oftime 148 was set at ts= 2 s, as marked. Fig. 6 is


19/34

a section of screen capture from the DSO withsome annotation added. The screen captureincludes data: dur(A) is the duration of plot DA,totp(A) is the total number of detection events inplot DA, and (B) is for plot DB. A section of bins

Ne 150 were used to count the unquantum effect.In plot DA the effect in 150 stands above a randomresponse seen on both sides of this section, I callthe wings. In plot DB coincidences caused bybackground radiation show 16 events all within 37bins in a duration of 40.1 ks; an average one countevery 1.4 hours. This small background rate ismost likely due to cosmic ray showers and will besubtracted from the rate read from section Ne in plotDA. After correcting for background, any rise inthe average count in section Ne above the average

number of random events in the surrounding wingsof the tplot is evidence that chance is surpassed.It is valid to just use the tallest bin of plot DA forcalculations, but I will use the much moreconservative average just stated. The experimentalcoincidence rate Re= (295/5.5Ks 16/40.1 ks)/37= 0.00144/bin-sec. All my calculations in thisdisclosure use this more conservative Re, withbackground subtracted as just shown.

A chance coincidence rate Rc (or simply a

chance rate) can be calculated two ways: from thenoise in the wings of the tplot, or from the singlescounters. The singles counters on channel 1 gaveR1 = 291/s, and for channel 2 gaveR2 = 30/s, with both SCAs similarly windowed around 88 keV.The time constant is determined from the DSO asthe time per bin at = 5 ns. A different chancecoincidence rate equation is used fortplots:

Rc = R1R2, Eq. (13)

Equations (12) and (13) are standard in the nuclearmeasurement industry and are found in GF KnollsRadiation Detection and Measurement. Using thesingles counters,Rc = 43.5x106/bin-sec. Using thewings of the tplot a crude but directly measuredchance rate was obtained as a cross check at Rcw =51 x 106/bin-sec. Re/Rc = 33 x chance. This rulesout photons altogether.

It was important to monitor every pulse toassure myself that I was counting well behaved

detector pulses. The LT344 DSO performed thistask well in analog persist mode. I used thismonitoring technique in all tests using the LT344DSO. I maintain that less than 1% of all my datareported in this disclosure contain falsely shaped

pulses. The experiments and preferredembodiments may be constructed without thisfeature but it is best to include some form of test,or use a pulse shape filter, for a convincingdemonstration.

It was very important to show theunquantum effect was not a special property ofemissions from Cd109. Another experiment (notshown) using Co57 using a lead collimator in thewell tube on channel 1 gave 190 times chance.Lead has a fluorescence at 87 keV and care was

taken to avoid windowing near this part of thespectrum. This is why I do not use lead for thecollimator with Cd109. Many experiments wereperformed with Co57, some with tungsten linedcollimators with similar results. Someexperiments have employed an aluminum filtermounted at the aperture of the collimator (notshown) to reduce x-rays; no difference has beennoticed from this practice.

Fig. 7 shows tplot EA using Cs137, asignal generator plot EB, and a long time tplotEC

using Cd109. These early experiments wereperformed August 2003 and used a time-to-analogconverter fed to a multichannel analyzer. Plot EAwas a search for an unquantum effect using ahigher frequency gamma ray. Experiment of plotEA used: 1 Ci of Cs137 in lead collimator,channel 1 NaI(Tl) 1 inch dia. detector, channel 2NaI(Tl) 2 inch dia. detector, both SCA windows onthe 662 keV characteristic gamma ray region,collected for 10.5 hours. Plot EA showed onlyrandom times between events. This failure to read

the unquantum effect is important to compare to alater success, whereby I have decipheredconditions necessary to reveal the effect. Plot EBis data from a control experiment using a signalgenerator on channel 1 in coincidence with aCd109 source on channel 2, and also gave arandom t plot. Plots EA and EB are what physicists usually see. These are importantcontrols that I have performed to show that mydevice and technique delivers a chancecoincidence rate that obeysEq. (13).


20/34

Returning to the issue ofenergy conservation, there is a wayto test that my effect upholds it. Ifthere are events triggered by thegamma in coincidence, it should

remove events from the randomdistribution in the wings of the t plot. This test was attempted in a4.8 day long test shown in plot EC,using hardware of Fig. 5, and atime-to-analog converter. Theeffect section 160 accounted for 0.6of all counts on plot EC, but thefraction in the unquantum effect wasonly ~ 1/300 of the total true startcounts. The measurement revealed

a slight lowering of the count in thewings but this lowering did notsurpass the quantity in my erroranalysis. The experiment is worthmentioning because it should berepeated with refinements employedto verify energy conservation.

Though my early tests withCs137 revealed no unquantumeffect, I have on August 18, 2004discovered how to reveal it using the specially made

thin detector, as shown in data of Fig.8

. Thehardware for data of Fig. 8 was the same as that ofthe preferred embodiment of Fig. 4 with thesespecifications: on channel 1 a 40 mm square by 4mm NaI(Tl) thin scintillator, on channel 2 a 42 x 42mm NaI(Tl) scintillator, a collimator made of a 2inch thick lead block with a inch diameter hole toaccommodate a standard 1 Ci test source ofCs137. These were the same source and collimatorused for test EA of Fig. 7. The collimator remainedfixed and the source was retracted within the

collimator to different distances from the channel 1detector. In plots of Fig. 8 the duration ofexperiments and vertical scalings are different, butthey are still valuable for seeing how theunquantum effect appears above randomness.Horizontal time scale is 500 ns for the full widthshown in each plot. Plot FA shows backgroundcoincidences with no gamma source at a total of260 x 106/(window-sec) in a 10 bin section 166.Terms window and section are similar; window isfor the SCA setting, and section is for the same

setting seen on plots or spectra. I use the termspectrum for an ungated plot. For plot FB thesource was 1 inch from the detector, and showsonly randomness, as expected by quantummechanics. For plot FC the source was at 2inches with the same result. For plot FD thesource was at 3 inches, and an unquantum effect begins to appear: within section 166Re measuredat only 1% above chance, calculated by singlescounters, and after subtracting background. Forplot FE at 3.5 inches, duration 84.4 ks, theunquantum effect ratio calculates to 1.6 times

chance. Since Cs137 decays by a beta decayprocess, this shows the unquantum effect is notlimited to an electron capture process. The smallunquantum effect read from Cs137 is consistentwith the theory of linking the effect to detector photoelectric effect efficiency. In plotFF thesame Cs137 source was in the same block of leadbut the block was rotated 90 degrees and extra leadwas added so the gamma rays needed to passthrough 1 inch of lead in a straight path to the 4


21/34

mm thick NaI(Tl) detector. Comparingthe distance to the lead effects:At 3.5 inches,

R1 = 12.4/s,Re = 20 x 106/bin-sec, Rc = 12.4 x 106/bin-sec, Re/Rc =

1.61.Through 1 inch of lead,R1 = 21.7/s,Re = 26 x 106/bin-

sec, Rc = 15.4 x 106/bin-sec, Re/Rc =1.68.

This important test shows thatthe unquantum effect can bemanipulated to appear by two differentmethods. I did not control closely tomaintain similar singles count rates withdistance, but this was done in the next test.

Fig.9

shows data taken July 2004 using: thesame detectors used for Fig. 8, the electronics ofFig. 4, and a 1 Ci Co57 source collimated with a1/8 inch diameter inch thick lead aperture. Thesource and collimator moved as a unit as prescribedin Fig. 4. Horizontal time scale is 1 s/division,and the DSO smart gate time window was ts = 2 sas shown. Plot GA shows background at 421 x106/sec in a 26 bin effect section and was used tosubtract its rate from data of the remaining plots.Plot GB had the source to detector distance at

inch and revealed 22.5 x chance. Plot GC at 1 inchrevealed 9.3 x chance. Plot GD collecting data for34 hours at 1.5 inches revealed 11.6 x chance.Here at 122 keV from Co57 the unquantum effectwas generally stronger with the source close to thedetectors.

With 122 keV when the source was movedback, the unquantum effect was lower, even thoughthe singles rates were substantially unchanged.With 662 keV when the source was moved back theunquantum effect was enhanced. At 662 keV, the

Pb test suggests the gamma ray wavepacket is madeto spread-out, similar to moving back the source,for each individual h wavepacket as it scattersthrough the lead. The whole of these tests indicatea solid angle to each h emission that is narrowerwith frequency and that there is a size to matchbetween each microscopic h cone and themicroscopic absorber to optimize the unquantumeffect. This size match allows some of the needleradiation to pass and some to be absorbed togamma-trigger more than one detection. In the

tests of Figs. 8 and 9 the macroscopic cone ofradiation incident on the detector did not miss

either detector, so the ratio of flux between the twodetectors remained a constant. However, withCs137 the flux rate was lowered with distance andmay have played a role in comparing these twoexperiments. The preferred embodiment specifiesmoving the source and collimator as a unit to aidthese investigations. Only the characteristicspectral sections (the photopeak) were windowedand not the Compton sections.

Tests in August 2004 (not shown) with the59 keV of Am241 did not reveal any unquantum

effect. These are important to describe to showlimitations of reading the unquantum effect. Forthe channel 1 detector, tests using the 4 mmNaI(Tl) scintillator and a inch thick CsFl(Eu)scintillator were tried. Gamma flux passedthrough the channel 1 detector to a 2 inch NaI(Tl)on channel 2 in tandem geometry. CsFl(Eu) waschosen because of its greater transparency at thislower gamma frequency. NaI(Tl) was also testedat the channel 1 detector. Am241 emits a gammaray by alpha decay, and I conclude this influencesthe classical properties of the emitted gamma rayto cause a null unquantum effect. Thesemeasurements offer clues to the classical structureof an individual hpulse, and have only beenexplored very recently using the method of thisdisclosure. The decay process of both Cd109 andCo57 are by electron capture, and evidence showsthis mechanism is the best way to create theclassical spatial and temporal pulse-like attributesnecessary for the unquantum effect to be detected.


22/34

The common factors among these experimentsindicate that a high pulse amplitude resolution atthe detector, a high photoelectric effect efficiencyat the detector and an electron capture process atthe emitter work best. These methods of reading

spatial and temporal properties of an h of a gammaray are not understood with the photon model.So far Cd109 and Co57 are the only sources

that have revealed a strong enough unquantumeffect to be useful as a probe of a material scatterer,but the search for such sources has not beenexhaustive. The Am241 gamma from alpha decayis expected to be more pulse-like and have anarrower solid angle than an h of radiation emittedfrom an x-ray source, so it is unlikely that an x-raysource would display the unquantum effect, but it

remains to be tested. The failure of the photonmodel for gamma rays implies the entireelectromagnetic spectrum is purely classical. Useof other radiation sources or detectors not describedin this disclosure, that display the unquantum effectwould depend on the method and underlyingphysics in this disclosure.

Data for Fig. 10 is from a test of May 2003using the NaI(Tl) well-type detector at channel 1 intandem with an HPGe detector at channel 2. My 5Ci of Cd109 was inside the well with a copper

collimator insert. The channel 2 SCA window waswidened to observe a higher spectral section ofwhat passed through in coincidence. Detectororientation was the same as shown in Fig. 5. PlotHA is a singles spectrum from the HPGe, and wasuseful for calibration because the 264 keV peakfrom Cd113m was present. Plot HB is acoincidence-gated pulse amplitude plot where thetriggering was accomplished with one-shot pulsegenerators feeding an ORTEC 414A coincidencemodule set to overlap 100 ns pulses. The 414A

gated a multichannel analyzer that recorded pulsesfrom the channel 2 shaping amplifier via an analogdelay line. The final timing adjustment to overlaptwo 100 ns pulses was aided by a test with Na22. Itook special care to eliminate distorted pulses fromthe channel 2 detector by building a high speedpile-up rejector of my own design using a shapemask on a CRT. Coincidence-gated pulses of non-standard shape were filtered from entering data toplot HB. Pile-up elimination was always less than1% of the recorded coincidences. It was later

determined that this low rate of false pulses wouldnot significantly affect the gated pulse amplitudeplot and resulting statistics so the pile-up rejectorwas only used for this experiment. The LT344DSO monitored all pulses and it was found that

this was a good way to read any form of distortion,even forms that a good pile-up rejector wouldmiss. Plot HB reveals an impressive coincidence-gated peak193 only one bin wide at 88 keV with0.0056 counts/s. With R1 = 1289/s, Eq. (13)givesRc = 1/(1293 seconds). Therefore chance isexceeded byRe/Rc = 7.2. At 2 x 88 keV the gatedplot HB clearly shows a feature not present at allin the singles spectrum HA, peak194 at 176 keV.The 176 keV peak is predictable from my singledetector sum-peak analysis of section 60 Fig. 3.

In an earlier experiment of July 2002, I firstobserved coincidence-gated unquantum effectplots in a similar manner using Cd109 and twoNaI(Tl).

If by some strange way the Cd113m 264keV gamma were to generate a pair of events incoincidence by Compton scatterings, a broadspectrum of pulse amplitudes would be present atthe 88 keV point 193 in plot HB. The incrediblegated single bin peak193 of plot HB shows this is

not the case. This

eliminates anyargument against acontaminant causingthe unquantum effect.

Continuingwith the tandemgeometry are resultsof tests begun July11, 2004, shown inFigs. 11A and 11B.

Orientation of components are thesame as for Fig. 5,and the electronicsare the same as forFig. 4. The NaI(Tl)well-type scintillatorwas on channel 1 intandem with the 2inch NaI(Tl) onchannel 2. Here the


23/34

LT344 DSO wasused tosimultaneouslygenerate both thet and

coincidence-gated pulse amplitude plots. To obtaingood pulseamplitude data,time window tswasnarrowed to 300 nsto exclude most ofthe randomresponse (thewings); full

horizontal scaleshown for Fig.11A is 350 ns.Fig. 11A are t plots using three preparations ofCd109 for sources.

Plot IA used the same 5 Ci preparation ofCd109 as used in other experiments here of thisspecification. This source was prepared in a glasstube melted and drawn to a sharp depression. Ten

Ci 109CdCl2 solution in water was dropped in andevaporated to leave a salt deposit of small physicaldimension. This being about a year old and encasedin glass made it ~ 5 Ci.

In plot IB the Cd109 was specially prepared by electroplating a 109CdCl2 solution onto a thinplatinum wire, depositing approximately 29 Ci ofmetallic Cd109. In plot IC the Cd109 wasspecially prepared by evaporating a 109CdCl2solution, but this solution also had sulfuric acid andNaOh added. These chemicals were from what was

left over in the electroplating solution, but provedeven more useful in making a potent Cd109 saltsource. The solution was evaporated in a centrifugetube to deposit a salt with about 1 Ci. It tookmuch work in January to June 2004 to optimizethese electroplating and salt depositing processes.A servo loop monitored current in the platingprocess to perfectly control a motor to position theplatinum wire, just breaking the solution surface.

The rates from the well-type scintillator forchannel 1, windowed around the 88 keV gammaresponse are posted to the right of Fig. 11A, andgive evidence of the lower Ci of the complexsalt. The degree above chance for each

experiment was calculated as usual: {[(coincidencecount in t window)/(experiment time)] (background coincidence rate in same window oftime and energy)}/(bins of t window) =(coincidences due to isotope)/(bin-sec) = Re. Forplot IA 5 Ci in salt form gaveRe/Rc = 70, plot IB29 Ci metal form gaveRe/Rc = 94, plot IC 1 Cicomplex saltRe/Rc = 3853.

Fig. 11B are pulse amplitude plots using thesame sources as in Fig. 11A: the 5 Ci salt ID, 29Ci metal IE, and 1 Ci complex salt IF. A

reference spectrum of Cd109 was acquired for thistest, but is only drawn 206. Point 208 marks 1 x88 keV, 210 marks 2 x 88 keV, and 212 markswhere 3 x 88 keV events would be detected. Plotsof Fig. 11B are aligned to the same horizontalscale. SCA2 set lower level 214 and upper level216 for these plots, defining SCA2 window 217.

Plot ID shows a trend of two pulses thatoverlapped in coincidence at mark 210 indicatingtwo events in the channel 2 detector plus one in thewell detector, all in coincidence. Plot IE shows a

coincidence peak at mark212 indicating that threeevents must have piled up more often than twoevents and that this happened in addition to thegamma-triggered event in the channel 1 detector;adding to 4 events in coincidence. A similaranal

photon violation spectroscopy

Documents