Overcoming the quantum mechanics measurement problem by experiment and theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".