Three Photon Quantum interference and Harmonic of single energy scales

 Quantum computers have been “just around the corner” for 3 decades or more. And will never be realised. They are science fiction fantasy based on an imaginary magic pseudoscience called Quantum wave particle duality. Quantum “theorists” seem to publish almost daily their misunderstandings of the classical interference effects of wave only Electromagnetic radiation. Below is a link where once again quantum theorists have misunderstood classical resonance in atoms. Because in truth Atoms are just classical harmonic oscillators and will produce a specific range of harmonics and sub harmonics from just one source fundamental wavelength. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240423113051.htm

And from another paper on imaginary 3 photon interference I’ve quoted below some text from another paper on imaginary 3 photon quantum effects. Essentially the researchers have once again misunderstood classical wave only interference effects and harmonic oscillators. And pretended these basic classical effects are spooky quantum magic! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02189

“A high-quality single-photon source based on a semiconductor quantum dot [27] embedded in an open microcavity is used to deterministically produce single photons that are converted to the telecommunication band with a quantum frequency converter [28, 29]. These single photons are deterministically demultiplexed into six indistinguishable singlephoton sources [30, 31], which are manipulated in a fully programmable photonic chip [32]. Heraled by the detection of four output spatial modes with high-efficiency single-photon detectors”

This quote above is an experimental description quoted directly from the opening page of the above linked arxiv paper. And is essentially describing a classical interference effect. Nothing to do with imaginary quantum effects. 

There is no need to invoke quantum theory to describe classical wave theory of light. Here below is my classical translation of the above “Quantum” papers quoted text: 

“A (low level) light source produces wave emr that is then converted into different wavelengths of emr following centuries old knowledge of resonance and harmonic oscillators. Wavelengths which are then made to interfere with each other in what is called classical wave interference. And the resulting wavelength radiation is then detected at various detectors where wave radiation is absorbed by the detector atoms. Each atom acting sort of like a atom sized capacitor which absorbs discreet amounts of incident wave radiation and releases it in pulses to be amplified and sent to the detector hardware using the “electron” cascade effect. And misconstrued as some sort of magical spooky quantum action at a distance effect.“

The following link is a graphic description of how wave radiation and atom absorption can model imaginary ‘single double or triple photon’ quantum detection as a purely classical effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

And regarding the process cited in these papers as “quantum frequency convertors” and the supposed “surprising” harmonic order observed in SPE’s indicating a energy scale in the Science daily press release cited above.  Once again the classical nature of atoms as harmonic oscillators has been ignored in favour of quantum spookiness. 

To get the correct explanation using a classical wave only model of atoms and light that does not involve spooky quantum nonsense look to this following paper on Harmonic and sub harmonic wavelengths generated from a single fundamental wavelength in Hydrogen atoms: https://vixra.org/author/p_g_vejde

No need for any quantum magic. Any researchers or institutions wishing to try to harness classical wave interference correctly to try and exploit any possible advances in computing that classical interference could offer to computing had best stop wasting their time and budgets looking for mythical quantum dragons and spooky entangled angels. And hire me to explain how quantum theory has misled research into theoretical physics for more than a century ever since Neil’s Bohr published his misguided Electron shell model in the early 20th C. The fact is that all observed energy levels in all atoms can be modelled succesfully  using a wave only classical model. No imaginary electron shells or photons needed.

Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Reversal of quantized Hall drift at non interacting and interacting topological boundaries.

 The following paper seems to misunderstand basic physics. And attributes what is essentially classical Newtonian physics to imaginary pseudoscientific quantum effects.

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reveals-topological-reversal-quantum.html

This misunderstanding is based on the fact that QT theorists have assumed light is a particle *and* a wave. This is a false assumption. Light is wave only. And all imaginary magical “ quantum” effects are actually just theorists misunderstanding the wave based nature of light and pretending it’s also a particle. Any imaginary quantum effects can be just as well described by classical waves and classical polarisation. As the following links explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Take for instance the polarisation of EMR after reflection. Notice the handedness of the incident circular polarised wave changes handedness. But only in its direction of propagation!

Because from the observers point of view the incident wave has the same handedness as the reflected wave. 

This is because polarisation of light is dictated by the angle of the magnetic field of the incident light wave. And thus the handedness of the polarisation of the reflected light will be the same as the angle of the incident light waves. 

In case this doesn’t make sense to any student of physics indoctrinated into the nonsense of ridiculous quantum theory then look at how polarisation of a reflected wave depends on the polarisation of the incident wave.

If for an observer looking at the reflection plane at t_0 the incident circular polarised wave is polarised vertically relative to the observer at 12:00 o’clock. Then its reflected wave will also be polarised vertically. In other words the polarisation angle of the light beam moving towards and hitting the mirror will be vertical,relative to the observer.

Then it follows that at t_1 the incident circularly polarised wave has rotated slightly clockwise to 1:00 o’clock and that the reflected wave now moving towards the observer will also be polarised to the angle of 1:00 o’clock. BUT...relative to the observer.

This is referred to in physics as a flipping of handedness for polarisation at reflection. But what the reference fails to mention is that yes although the handedness flips at reflection. That is only true in the direction of propagation. Whereas from an observer point of view the handedness does not flip at reflection. 

This phenomena also can explain the observations in the experiment cited above. Because the handedness of the magnetic fields of the atoms upon reflection at the barrier is dependent on the angle of the atoms magnetic field before it reflects. And notice in the experiment the  handedness of the magnetic field of the atom after reflection is the same as before it is reflected. As with EMR at reflection.

No quantum effects needed. Just a simple following of the classical physics rule of magnetism on reflection. 

Which is: From an external observers point of view looking at the mirror, if a magnetic field is reflected its angle of polarisation must be preserved. And, for the external observer, be the same for the reflected atom or light wave as the angle of polarisation of the incident atom or lightwave.

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

Earths inner core slowing and coming to a stop.

 Once again the latest research confirms a prediction made by my theoretical model of the earths core and its associated magnetic field. The main feature of this recent paper is the “surprising” observation by authors of the paper cited below, that the earths inner core appears to slowing and possibly may go into reverse in the very near future.! Not previously expected or ever predicted in any peer reviewed paper. 

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367351565_Multidecadal_variation_of_the_Earth%27s_inner-core_rotation

This observation in this latest 2024 paper was also predicted in my paper and first published here on this blog in 2008. After unfortunately having been rejected by Elseviers Earths Science journal as having its predictions “not quantitively confirmed by observations”

A strange excuse for a journal to make seeing as my model used all the observed data that any other peer reviewed published model had ever used. Not to mention the oft confirmed fact that since then all other models predictions have subsequently failed or at least had to be revised. Whereas my model continues to successfully model all the observed data to date. As the above Researchgate paper once again confirms. I suppose what this shows is that established peer reviewed physics prime guiding rule to getting published is that it must never ever successfully predict any future data.

The link to my paper and it’s prediction that the inner core rotation is slowing and will soon come to stop and reverse is made is at:

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2008/12/earths-magnetic-field.html

Quantum ultra cold atomic magnetic spins refute Bohr model

 It’s amazing how the Bohr model continues to fail to model what actually happens at the atomic level of atoms their spectral lines and their associated magnetic fields. This paper in particular  explains the failings of the Bohr model with respect to spectral lines: 

https://vixra.org/pdf/2302.0102v1.pdf

However, as technology advances this also allows us to look closer at how the atoms magnetic field itself behaves. And as we look closer we find out that atoms magnetic fields , incorrectly assumed to be “spinning” electrons, are actually just small magnets interacting with each other. Confirming the theoretical modelling outlined in my article and video on how atoms, their magnetic fields and flow of electricity actually are modelled mechanically.

It’s surprising how close the illustration of what is happening to atomic magnetic fields in this paper 

https://news.mit.edu/2020/ultracold-quantum-magnetic-atom-spins-1216

reproduces earlier theoretical modelling of mine made in this video linked below. When will quantum theorists admit their electron spin model is outdated and needs to be replaced with a much simpler model as outlined in my research linked below.

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2010/09/alternating-current.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPKIBTeQng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07N2rkA2esg

Cassini data does not rule out refraction of EMR waves

 Contrary to numerous claims that Cassini data rules out refraction as the source of observed time delays, Bertotti et al (1993 & 2003) actually never did ANY analysis to test and rule out refraction. 

In fact as the papers authors, Bertotti et al 2003 admit in section 3.1, the two seperate frequencies measured for time delay by Cassini had to be combined together using algorithms. Because each frequency on its own was far too messy due to intense coronal variation. In other words data from each channel was not ever even available for testing of refraction. In his 1993 or 2003 papers

Bertotti admits in his 1993 Cassini paper that at no point is refraction between frequencies tested for. As he combines the two observed Ka and X frequencies into one mixed band for analysis.  

As a “mixed optical” path as described in his 1993 paper. Which is then compared to *hypothetical* time delays predicted by GR theory and *assumptions* of electron column properties. 

(Bertotti also does this in his closed loop 2003 arxiv paper and admits the data from Ka is discontinuous and the corona is too variable to analyse as two seperate frequencies. )

Three way link yes, but still only 2 frequencies. Just smaller error margins. And the Ka and X bands are then combined by calculation. Notice that the 2 dispersive and 1 non dispersive parts are not measured seperately. They are ‘Calculations’ based on theoretical assumptions. 

And combined to see if they fit the observed time delay from the combined Ka and X frequency bands. As described in the various 4 sections of the 1993 paper cited above. 

Bertotti et al, 1993 Astron. Astrophys. 269, 608–616 1993 

A paper referenced in both the arxiv and Nature 2003 papers.