MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281844298 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-35.2.197

Overcoming the quantum mechanics measurement problem by experiment and theory

2022· article· en· W4281844298 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric Stanley Reiter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPhotonCoincidenceQuantization (signal processing)Photoelectric effectQuantum mechanicsElectronQuantumDetectorBeam (structure)Wave function collapseOpticsQuantum dynamicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unknown mechanism of wave-function collapse is called the measurement problem. The problem is best portrayed by a beam-split coincidence test, usually performed with visible light. The notion that energy conservation requires quantization is challenged by considering new beam-split tests and a threshold model (TM). An analysis of pulse heights in detectors for visible light concludes that their pulse height distribution is too broad to make the quantum/threshold distinction. This is because TM recognizes a preloaded state, understood in the loading theories of Planck, Debye, and Millikan, but usually unrecognized. The narrow pulse height distribution of gamma-ray detectors overcomes this detector problem. In addition, a source of singly emitted radiation is required for these beam-split tests. To assure a singly emitted source, the well-known true-coincidence test from nuclear physics is far more reliable than any test with visible light. One of my many successful beam-split coincidence tests with gamma-rays is described revealing the failure of quantum mechanics. After plotting the times between photoelectric effect pulses from the two detectors and comparing to accidental chance, I report a seemingly two-for-one effect that contradicts a photon kind of energy conservation. My similar tests performed with alpha-rays also contradict quantum mechanics. To explain how matter can load up, I hypothesize that our electron constants h, e , and m are maxima. Simple conserved ratios of these constants h / m , e / m , h / e , seen in equations involving electron beams, can explain how charge waves can spread, yet accumulate to measurable threshold values h , e , m, upon absorption to convey particle-like effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207