To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: "Flaw in QM foundation" experiment  (Read 2600 times)

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
"Flaw in QM foundation" experiment
« on: November 08, 2006, 07:18:36 PM »

I have a monumental proposed experiment planned for 2007 that IMHO will prove error in the very foundations of QM. I would appreciate anyone who would forward this email to qualified QM experts.

Prior to conducting the experiment I need committed predictions from an appreciable number of QM experts. Please view the bottom of this page to see the three predicted options.

I am available to discuss the experiment details. Here's an outline of the proposed experiment:

------- Proposed Experiment -------
Basic outline:
An appreciable small dipole antenna will emit a constant coherent signal less than 1 GHz. The antenna's efficiency will approach 100% -- due to losses such as electrical resistance. We may measure the antennas efficiency. Also we may accurately predict the antennas efficiency with NEC, a well-proven highly mathematical antenna simulation program with decades of success. The transmitting antenna would radiate a far field at a constant frequency. On *average* the transmitting antenna absorbs close to (as in "almost 100% exact" but not 100% exact due to the appreciably low losses such as electrical resistance) *half* hf joules per wavelength. The measuring instruments accurately display over time the voltage signals across the transmitting antenna in addition to the voltage across one resistor in series with the appreciably small dipole antenna. The measured voltage across the resistor allows the instruments to calculate the dipole antennas current. The instruments calculate the transmitting antennas consumed power and energy in every wavelength given the voltage and current. In addition to the transmitting antenna there will be one receiving antenna in the far field. Note that the measuring instruments will record the signal thereby allowing detailed analysis of the energy contained in each wavelength. The NEC engine will accurately predict the aforementioned experimental results.

The goal is to apply low enough power across the antenna to emit no more than half a photon per wavelength on average. Below is an example of a typical dipole antenna at 1 GHz. Note the final antenna will have an appreciably smaller dipole.

Example of a typical 1 GHz dipole antenna that emits one photon per wavelength on average for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of the aforementioned experiment:

This is merely a quick run. I still need to meticulously go over the numbers -->

For now two significant digits will due.

Structure: Single dipole in free space.
Frequency: 1.0 GHz.
Dipole length: 0.14 m
Dipole wire diameter: 1.4 mm (15 AWG)
E-field at 0.2 meters away from dipole center: 1.2 uV / meter
Radiated energy, 1 sine wave: 6.6E-25 J

Energy of a 1 GHz photon: E = hf = 6.6E-34 * 1 GHz = 6.6E-25 J

The field at 0.2 meters away from source (far field) is 1.2 uV / meter. For now lets simplify the receiving antenna. At a later date NEC will accurately predict the received signal. The receiving antenna has an equivalent collecting length of 0.14 meters thereby receiving 1.2 uV/m * 0.14 m = 170 nV. This experiment is doable.

Please note the above dipole was used merely as a signal source to quickly determine the field magnitude of one photon. The final version would consist of a smaller dipole to wavelength ratio. This applies to both transmitting and receiving antennas. Narrowing the dipole length as close to a point source is highly advantageous. This narrows any field lag in the wire since a half wavelength dipole consists of an appreciably lengthy wave.

In a nutshell:
The instruments will measure the effective radiated energy per wavelength on a transmitting antenna. We will know the transmitting antennas efficiency. We will know how much energy was radiated in any particular wavelength by directly measuring the consumed energy of the transmitting antenna. Additionally we may verify the transmitting antenna radiated far field energy. The instruments may calculate the energy in the field at any given wavelength. Therefore, we have two separate methods of verify how much energy was radiated in any given wavelength. The goal is to emit appreciably less than hf joules in any given wavelength thereby showing the very foundations of QM are flawed. Such a flaw if proven, demonstrates QM places incorrect limitations.

Three possible outcomes:
1. Do you predict the transmitting antenna consumes close to (as in "almost 100% exact" but not 100% exact due to the appreciably low losses such as electrical resistance) *half* hf per wavelength nearly 100% of the time?
2. Do you predict the transmitting antenna consumes close to (as in "almost 100% exact" but not 100% exact due to the appreciably low losses such as electrical resistance) hf per wavelength half of the time on average? For example, during one wavelength the transmitting antenna absorbs a *full* hf of energy, but the next wavelength it might absorb no energy, so that overall, *on average*, the transmitting antenna consumes half hf per wavelength.
3. Do you predict the transmitting antenna consumes no energy except the appreciably low amount of energy loss due to the inefficiencies of the antenna such as electrical resistance?

Please inform me of other possible outcomes or proposed modifications or additions to the above options.

Paul Lowrance
« Last Edit: November 09, 2006, 05:42:49 PM by PaulLowrance »