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.

Sagnac Experiment and Undulatory emission theory

Abstract

Reference on ring gyro Sagnac instruments show that these gyros measure any rotation and not just those ones where the Center of the instrument is the Center of rotation. By putting the Center of rotation of the mirror setup in the traditional Sagnac experiment underneath the source in the experiment the source will now not move relative to the lab and instead the experimental mirror setup rotates in circles in the lab and around the source.

Current theoretical assumptions on emission theory

According to most if not all current reference is the prediction that; Under emission theory the speed of light in the lab frame of the mirrored sagnac experiment should be at c plus or minus any extra velocity from the motion of the source as it rotates in the lab frame. The calculation made using c+-v is not consistent with the observations of path difference in Sagnac X and thus emission theory can apparently be ruled out and replaced with SR.

Alternative and correct interpretation of observations.

Further scrutiny of this assumption shows that this c+-v calculation is incorrect. Whatever this calculation represents, is doesn’t correctly calculate for any emission theory. Because the one central property of all emission theories is that light always has to be at a constant speed c in the source frame in the Sagnac X. And if this were correctly translated to the lab frame, light should therefore be at a variable speed in the lab frame if indeed the source were rotating in the lab frame.

Not at a constant c+-v in the lab frame as many of those critics of emission theory seem to contend. So it is interesting to note that all these critics avoid making a calculation in the only other frame that counts. The source frame.

The Source Frame. A frame where emission theories predict light must always be at c. The most notable emission theory being Ritz’s undulatory theory of light from the early 20th C in which he very specifically states light must always propagate away from the source at c. Regardless of the  motion of the source relative to anything else. Reflection of the light does not change the speed of the light in the sources frame also in Ritz’s model.

This can be tested empirically using any version of the Sagnac X. The key is to combine the source with the lab frame by putting the axis of rotation of the mirrors exactly at the same point below the source. Which is the where the light path splits into 2 at the Beam splitter. By doing so one makes the source frame the same as the lab frame. Seeing as in the lab frame the source will now not be moving. And now the mirrors rotate around the unmoving source. And in this source/lab frame it is easier to calculate the speed of light for an emission model by measuring distances travelled for each clockwise and counter clockwise beam. As is also currently done for predictions for SR.

At this point predictions from both emission and SR theories are consistent with those observations of light paths where the path is calculated in the source/lab frame. 

What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

 What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

To follow on from previous articles on this blog describing how light and atoms are wave only and how the offset between emission and absorption spectra can be described by waves only, I would like to supply a possible explanation and mechanism for what could cause the redshifting of light in a non expanding universe. This mechanism that occurs between an atom and emr and leads to a redshifting of light between absorbed and emitted light is the same mechanism. But on a much smaller scale when light propagates through a vacuum.

Distributing higher energies received to lower energies transmitted by any point in space of the vacuum.

Offset between absorption and emission spectra

 Offset between absorption and emission spectra

Although atoms are said to emit and absorb emr at only very specific frequencies (ie. Hydrogens Balmer series), observations contradict this. And show that there is an offset between the absorbed and re emitted light. Which seems counter-intuitive, given the assumption that the atoms resonant frequency should respond to and produce the same frequencies of light. Not two slightly different frequencies

To explain this one must realise that the each of atoms resonant frequencies is actually a range of resonant frequencies clustered around a single frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve. And confirmed also in spectra by the observed width of the emission/absorption line. With the peak amplitude of resonant wavelength being at the Center of the spectral line. 

In other words at each resonant frequency of the atom, as illustrated by the width of the observed spectral line of the atom, the atom actually has a range of resonant frequencies clustered around that specific frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve with the maximum frequency being at the peak of the curve at the Center of the observed spectral line.

Taking this into account one can then explain how the offset between emission and absorption occurs. Because although the frequency range of the atoms resonant frequency is a uniform bell curve above and below the center of that particular resonant frequency. The input and output energies are different on either side of the Center. 

The Higher frequency side of the bell curve will have more input energy than the lower frequency side seeing as higher frequencies have more energy. Thus the absorption spectral line appears to be stronger on the higher frequency side of the curve. And conversely when that same absorbed energy is emitted again by the atom, the lower frequencies appear brighter. Because although a larger part of the input energy to the atom was from the higher side of the frequency bell curve of the atom, the total emitted energy is split equally between both hi and low frequency sides of the resonant frequency bell curve. Resulting in a slightly lower frequency emission line

This assumption is based on the fact that the atoms resonant frequency is centered on a single hypothetical wavelength. When absorbing equal frequencies of energy on either side of the bell curve it becomes obvious the higher frequency side receives more energy and appears brighter in the observed spectra. But when this energy is emitted equally between lower and higher frequencies ...the lower frequency side of the bell curve appears brighter. Thus shifting the emitted spectral line slightly to a longer spectral wavelength. As observed.

A new model for a wave only atom

 A new model of a wave only atom

In this blog and it’s associated YouTube channel I have provided various descriptions of how a wave only model of light and atoms can explain phenomena like induction and radiation and particle paths in particle accelerators. Here I would like to focus on a way to describe how emr waves can be used to model the atom itself.

We know from centuries of observation that EM radiation emitted by atoms is wave like. And that atoms when measured always appear to be wave like as resonant systems. 

Starting off from the oft repeated assumption in this blog that the universe is non expanding and infinite in size and age it is possible to then say that light itself from very distant sources will not only be redshifted.  But also blueshifted as distant parts of a non expanding universe move towards or away from our relative position here on earth.

This means that in an infinite non expanding universe light from any direction can not only be blueshifted but also can be redshifted. So much so that the wavefront itself will appear stationary to us here on earth. Superimpose these standing waves of the same wavelength coming in from all directions so that they meet at one central point. This is the theoretical Center of the wave atom. This physical effect can be seen in 2 D examples like waves rippling in to the Center of a vibrating bowl of water. Vibrate the bowl and the waves radiate in to the Center and where they meet is a central node  where the converging waves overlap and there is a concentration of energy at that point. Ie the Center of energy of the system which is the analogy of the Center of a system of the wave atom. In this example the vibrating source( edge of bowl) doesn’t move relative to the Center so waves move in to and through the center. If this were the case with a wave only atom then the magnetic field would oscillate betwen north and south. It doesn’t.

But if the source for all these waves were moving away from the ‘Center’ at c, then the wavefronts converging at the Center of the atom would be stationary. Allowing the atom to display a stable north south magnetic field.

Imagine this wave only scenario  in 3 dimensions and we not only get a Center point corresponding to the atom , we also find that the closer together the converging waves are the more amplitude the spherical converging waves possess. This gives a shell like structure to the atom for that wavelength. And corresponds to what particle physicists incorrectly call electron energy levels of atoms. The closer the converging waves are to the Center, the greater the strength  of the magnetic attraction. And conversely it’s repulsion ( sometimes called the strong interaction)

Each element has its own set of converging wavelengths. Which are observed as the different lines in an emission or absorption spectra.

It’s no coincidence that the more lines the element has, the “heavier” and thus farther down the periodic table the atom sits.

Obviously these wavelength shells I describe are directly related to the mass of the atom. Seeing as each wavelength shell is essentially a n-s magnetic field, lined up with all the other n-s orientations of the different wavelength shells. It thus takes energy (in the form of a external magnetic field) to move or rotate each shell. The more shells,...the more energy needed to move or rotate all the shells of that atom. Hence the mass of the atom is accounted for. 

And as described elsewhere in this blog we can then relate this model and describe ALL other known forces and phenomena related to atoms. Including gravity as a LeSage push gravity, Van der Waals and the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. Without having to resort to the veritable overpopulated and ridiculous zoo of particles and imaginary forces that the precopernican Standard model has become littered with.

The c+v hoax

Since SR was first conceived it has been assumed that classical theory cannot explain various phenomena like Sagnac, Ives Stilwell and the deSitter double star experiment. The claim being that light leaving a rotating or moving source travels at c+v in the inertial frame. That being the lab frame in Sagnac or the earth frame in de Sitter. This is an incorrect assumption made by supporters of relativity to rule out a classical model. Leaving SR as the only viable alternative. Analysis of this assumption shows it to be false.
Take the De Sitter example. ( De Sitter, Willem (1913), "On the constancy of the velocity of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, 395-396 ). In the currently available wiki page we have the quote: "According to simple emission theory, light thrown off by an object should move at a speed of c with respect to the emitting object". The authors of this page then proceed to contradict this statement by describing the exact opposite and say it travels at constant c+v in the inertial earth frame. This is a mathematical impossibility. If as relativists admit light must always travel at c in the source frame. It is impossible to have light travelling at a constant c+v speed in a inertial frame if one calculates using a Galilean transformation. To satisfy classicals constant c in a source frame it must be variable in the inertial frame. And in the accompanying java applet animation they actually show light leaving the source at *a variable speed* with respect to the source. In other words they have ignored the fact that they have just admitted classical theory only has light travelling at constant c relative to the source as it moves or rotates.
It is worth pointing out here that Classical theory of light does not have light at constant speed c in all frames. Only in the source frame. This is a fundamental aspect of Classical theory developed over many years prior to the inception of SR. Experiments such as MMX have only helped to confirm this property of light. The same mistake is made by relativists for the Sagnac theory in respect to Classical predictions. Here too the erroneous assumption is that light is c+v in the lab frame. Ignoring the fact that light should only be at constant speeds in the source frame. Regardless of the fact it rotates in the lab. If one looks at the Michelson Morley experiment from 1887 we observe light at constant speeds in all directions in the lab frame. Not in the inertial earth frame that the earth rotates in. This means that as the MMX rotates around the earths axis, light must be travelling at constant speeds in the rotating frame. Any Galilean translation to the inertial frame, as too with the rotating source in deSitter, will not give a constant speed in the inertial frame. Contrary to the claims of constant c+v in the inertial frame made by relativists. If one calculates speeds correctly for classical theory it becomes obvious that in fact light is variable in the inertial frame for Sagnac and deSitter among others and DOES not pile up on arriving at earth in deSitter. And CAN give a fringe shift in the rotating Sagnac source.
Examples of this are given as simulations in the video channel accompanying the blog channel "physics explained" for this article.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCcCBqQ2VHaWLL3Gzb8dIk-w
Further to this, some relativists claim that in fact light is variant in the MMX lab frame and that this therefore rules out the possibility that light is invariant and therefore constant only in the MMX lab frame. And by inference all other rotating source frames. Their argument is that although to date this claim they make hasn't actually been observed, the effect is there but too small to measure! This is basically suggesting that they believe that confirmed observation is overidden by unsubstantiated assumption. Not a very scientific approach on their part considering they usually insist verification by observation is of tantamount importance for any theoretical validity. As it turns out their assumptions about current experimental evidence not being sensitive enough to this 'imaginary' invariance appear to be false anyways. Because their assumptions are based on the assumptions made in 1887 that the aether winds effect on path difference was velocity of earth diluted by the refractive index of this in a theoretical aether
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In other words the aether wind was less than v of earth through the aether because it's refractive index reduced its effect. Whereas to test whether light is at c in the inertial or source frame, one does not have m take into account the refractive index of any aether and rather, just perform a straight Galilean translation from one frame to the other without invoking a refractive index. The following experiments are usually proposed by relativists to falsely claim that light cannot be only at c relative to its source. Contrary to relativists claims, they ARE all consistent with the prediction by classical theory that light is observed to travels at c relative to its source.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
IVES STILLWELL:
As explained in separate posts on this blog site, the Ives Stillwell experiment IS consistent with classical, and in fact invalidates SR. Contrary to claims made by relativists. And is probably the best classical style experiment to show this. Essentially to get the correct observed fringe offset, one needs to correctly calculate c+v. As opposed to relying on the erroneous calculations and assumptions made by Ives Stillwell. Correct calculations are supplied elsewhere on this blog in the relevant Ives Stillwell posts. If the only way to get the observed offset is to calculate using c+v, then it is impossible to have light at c as SR neccesitates to produce the observed offset. The SR calculations must then have been falsified to achieve the same result as classical. Probably some sort of lorentzian transformation to falsify data is used as SR does with Fizeau.
ALVAGER:
This is possibly the most audacious falsification of experimental data ever attempted by relativists. Essentially their argument is that a theoretical particle, the neutral pion, is the moving source for the observed gamma rays observed to travel at c in the experiment. As it turns out, neutral pions are assumed only and cannot nor ever actually have been observed experimentally. Their presumed existence relies solely on the observations of yes, you guessed it, gammarays observed in colliders in this very experiment.
Essentially what IS observed in this experiment are only gammarays travelling at c emitted by the non moving beryllium target. Perfectly consistent with classical theory which predicts emr will always only be observed to travel at c relative to its source. Relativists, desperate to discredit the obvious consistency of the experimental results with classical physics have invented an imaginary unsubstantiated particle that is emitted at near c by the target and then supposedly emits the observed gamma radiation. It is also worth pointing out the existence of these and other imaginary particles are in fact part of the standard model. Which itself is a theoretical framework based on false assumptions made by quantum theory about wave particle duality. An assumption about emr that has no substantiation. The photon is never actually observed, but only inferred. Either by scintillation or by photodetectors. Processes which themselves are easily explainable by a wave only classical theory of light. Utilising resonance to describe wave only light being absorbed or quantised in discreet amounts by the atoms in the detectors. FILIPPAS AND FOX: ( Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source, T.A. Filipas and J.G. Fox, Phys.Rev. 135, B1071). In this experiment it's not clear how curves A and B are calculated in the paper. No supporting calculations or assumptions are made to explain how exactly they have derived "incorrect" curves to invalidate classical theory. But a fundamental problem here is the assumption of photon pairs. Classical theory does not incorporate the concept photons or photon pairs. Light is a wave. Like Alvager any predictions can be identified as false assumptions for any classical model.
BECKMANN MANDICS:
Here the problem is simple. Light as a wave is not known to gain or lose velocity from reflection. Hence classical wave theory would also predict c in the lab seeing as the source is not moving. (Even if we were to assume additive velocities for wave reflection... why would the non moving lloyds mirror not return the speed to c again. It doesn't move relative to the interferometer.)
BABCOCK BERGER AND KANTOR:
Here we have another false assumption. The source window rotates. This means the speed for classical is NOT c+v. But rather variable. Data on window speed and design are not supplied and thus Calculations for the windows rotation need to be made to confirm what the average v would be for classical. But the conclusion would have to be much less than the assumed v as the rotating window as a source varies between 0 and v relative to the forward motion of the beam. Note there is an "unexplainable" fringe shift observed anyways in the experiment. Consistent with a slower than assumed source speed. At the very least these experiments are not conclusive either way.

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