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.

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.

Redshift Distance relationship in a non expanding model of the universe

 Redshift/Distance relationship for a Non expanding model

In cosmology redshift is given by the letter z.  The z to wavelength relationship in an expanding model works as follows:

A restframe source emits a wavelength range of 500-1000 nm. At z= 1 it doubles to an observed range of 1000-2000. At z=2 the range is 1500 to 3000. At z=3 the range is redshifted to 2000 to 4000 etc. The distance to the source in an expanding model is explained and given as velocity in km/s. The higher the redshift the faster it is moving away from us and the farther away it is. 

In other words the distance to a source at z=2 in an expanding model is much farther than predicted for a non expanding model because in a non expanding universe the source is not moving away from the observer on earth. So that for instance in a non expanding model a star at z=2 is twice as far away from earth as a star at z=1 is from earth.

Unfortunately to date the best confirmed real actual distance of any star from earth is much less than z=1. Which is z=0.1 to the Virgo cluster. The table below assumes distance X at z=1 is a known actual real distance and not an assumed distance related to velocity, as is the case in a Big Bang universe. 

z=0 (500nm to 1000nm ) = restframe

z= 1 (1000 to 2000)=distance A

z=3  (2000 to 4000)=distance 2xA

z=7 (4000 to 8000)=distance 3xA

z=15 (8000 to 16000)

z=31 (16000 to 32000)

z=63 (32000 to 64000)

z=127

z=255

z=511

z=1023(ie Microwave)=distance 10xA

Therefore in a non expanding universe z=1023 is only twice as far away as z=31. Or 10 times as far away as an object at z=1 

So far the current available limits of detection in optical are via the JWST mid infrared camera. ( JWST MIR camera range is 5-28 microns. Equivelent to a redshift range of z=9 to z=49)

The big question is...how far away is z=1 in a non expanding model?

That will be hard to quantify as so far only the Virgo cluster at approx z=0.001 has a known real distance. Using various methods like parralax. 

Thus in a non expanding universe the CMBR is explained as redshifted light from galaxies at and around z=1023. That is galaxies at around 10 times the distance from earth as any source observed at a distance where the light is redshifted to z=1.

The average black body spectrum of all the billions of stars in that distance parameter around z=1023 combine to give the observed CMBR. And because at that distance there is still a small variation in distribution of galaxies this also accounts for the slight graininess observed in the COBE CMBR images.

3D freestanding viewer using birefringement .

Use the properties of birefringement to create a free standard stereoscope viewer. Calcite Crystal split incoming circular polarised beam or a beam that consists of vertical and horizontal polarisation states.

Notice the delayed quantum eraser experiment uses this property of birefringement to create overlapping alternating out of phase interference patterns at the signal detector as described at the following link@:

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

Encode two data streams into the circular polarised beam so that one data stream is preserved in the horizontal part of the cycle and a seperate channel encoded in the vertical part of the cycle. Then this data could be extracted into two seperate beams again by simply putting the encoded circular polarised beam through a calcite crystal. 

In particular if two stereoscopic images were encoded into a circular polarised beam. The right hand image  on the horizontal part of the cycle, the left hand image on the vertical part of the cycle. Then this could be sent through a fibre optical network and at the other end the beam would be sent through a calcite crystal, the two stereoscopic images extracted and seperated by the crystal into two images, right and left. At which point the viewer could look at the crystal, change their eye focus so stereo images merge...and a true freestanding stereoscopic image could produced. Without need for special eyeglasses. Possibly the viewer side of the crystal surface could be made slightly convex to separate the two images so that one image at a time only would be seen by each eye. 

Delayed Choice Classical Eraser Experiment

The main illustration above is a schematic of the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. (Kim et al 1999)

The coincidence rates compiled from the 5 detectors can be explained by a classical model. By assuming the following: The light arriving at D0, D3, and D4 is vertically and horizontally polarized. Alternating between the two states once per frequency cycle of the light beam. (Circular polarization is one possibility). Each polarized state has its own associated interference pattern. The image on the movable detector plane of D0 is of two, overlapping, out of phase interference patterns rapidly oscillating between each other. Once per frequency cycle of the light. The overall superimposed image of the two overlapping patterns, over time, is of no overall interference pattern. 

The lightbeams arriving at D1 and D2 have been additionally plane polarized. One vertical one horizontally. This also puts the horizontal out of phase by half a cycle, temporaly, from the vertical.Thus essentially, the detectors D1 and D2 each only recieve half of the light pulse that leaves the beam splitter. Either vertical or horizontally polarized. This allows detectors D1 and D2 to only trigger light detections coincident with a light detection from only one of the two rapidly oscillating interference patterns at D0. 

Detectors D3 and D4 on the other hand, receive both vertical and horizontal plarized light. And thus detectors D3 and D4 have coincident detections with both overlapping oscllating interference patterns at D0.

This is what is observed in the Kim et al experimental setup.

There is no need for a counterintuitive "quantum erasure". The observed coincidence rates are explained simply by polarization states of light incident on the 5 detectors.

(Sept2021 postscript: Ive noticed from some comments that a more detailed explanation is needed. Here is additional information: This experiment is as easily explained using classical wave only theory and polarised states. Light leaves the double slit/BBO/Glan Thompson prism with alternating polarity between vertical and horizontal.

(This is essentially circular polarised light. Because if the two beams going to detector zero werent alternating between horizontal and vertical polarised light each cycle and instead were just two same plane polarised beams as some pretend, then the two phase shifted interference patterns and diffraction patterns observed at detector 0 would not be possible) 

Detectors 1 and 2 get two light beams each. One beam reflected twice which means the light incident on each detector is a combination of left and right hand circular polarised light beams. Which can only result in plane polarised light hitting each detector 1&2.  (Note that if one combines a left handed circular polarised beam with a right handed circular polarised beam the combined result is a beam that alternates between two opposing polarised states and plane polarisation each cycle. That is effectively plane polarised light.

Because the D1 beams undergo opposite reflections at the mirrors and beam splitters from the D2 beams...the two detectors 1&2 thus also each receive polarised light that is phase shifted by half cycle from the other. Ie..vertical and horizontal respectively.

Detectors 3 and 4 only get one beam reflected once, each.(The one reflection restores the polarity of the beams from orthogonally polarised circular light leaving the BBO/G-T prism setup back to identically circular polarisation. Which means they get the same phase light as that arriving at detector zero. 

The resulting polarised states mean D1&2 each only “observe at Detector Zero” via the coincidence counter two seperate phase shifted interference patterns from the other .And detectors 3 & 4, having the same incident polarised light as detector zero , observe diffraction patterns via the coincidence counter. 

No spooky quantum mumbo jumbo  maths needed to explain this experiment.

And finally to address claims that the Glan Thompson prism used in the experiment cannot send circular polarised light beams to the rest of the experimental setup. Critics cite evidence showing that similar birefringement mediums such as calcite crystals split the beam into two orthogonally plane polarised beams. And using plane polarisation filters they show how the two exiting light beams must be only plane polarised. As a plane polarised filter put over the two images only allows through one of the two images coming through the calcite filter. 

However this ignores the fact that a vertically plane polarising filter allows through not just vertical polarised light...but all angles except horizontal. So for instance around 45% of the light polarised at 45 degrees to vertical is let through a vertically polarised filter. The more the polarisation angle of the light deviates from vertical the less light is let through etc.

In other words a circular polarised beam will be split into two polarised beams by the crystal one beam preserving majority vertical, one majority horizontal. But still containing elements of all other angles of polarisation. And thus the circular polarisation of the beam is preserved.

Proof of this is available at any demonstration showing unpolarised light going through two plane polarised filters. Position both filters at vertical and all vertically polarised light from a source goes through, and blocking all horizontal polarised light. Turn one filter slowly to horizontal and the light coming through decreases to zero as both vertical and horizontal light from the source are now blocked. Light coming through doesn’t immediately decrease to zero as soon as the two polarised filters angle starts to diverge. It is an incremental decrease. Proving a plane or linear polarising filter still lets through almost all angles of polarisation. But at different amplitudes. 

This is how one can explain how two circular polarised light beams can appear as two plane polarised beams exiting the Glan Thompson prism.

For further description of how this can be modelled as a classical effect only, watch the following...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74