Greengrocer's Apostrophe: Bad Punctuation Even in The Old Country
Pacifica Assistant City Manager @ $13K to $15K a Month

Pacifican Eric Reiter Publishes Unquantum Physics Article

We are celebrating my unquantum physics article being published in a peer-reviewed journal: Progress in Physics. The article title is: New Experiments Call for a Continuous Absorption Alternative to Quantum Mechanics--The Unquantum Effect. It should appear soon, free to download online, at or see my website at

Concise Introduction to the Unquantum Effect
Quantum mechanics (QM) is synonymous with wave-particle duality: It means a particle is emitted, a wave associated with the particle determines the probability of where the particle will land, and the particle lands. Many physicists will admit there is no way to really understand QM because the wave must go everywhere, and then the wave needs to magically disappear. Spooks! It is not like a crime wave, because the effects happen one at a time. A famous example is the double-slit experiment, where single emissions make a wave pattern downstream. An early and nearly forgotten alternative model was called the loading theory (LT). In LT, emission of either matter or light initially would be quantized (a burst), but then can spread like a wave (not a particle). For absorption, the wave (matter or light) would load up to a threshold, then a particle-like effect would happen. This made perfect sense until the idea was unfairly misrepresented and banished, seemingly first by Max Born in his 1935 book, and by others. It has been misrepresented in our textbooks in several ways you will see in my writings.   The way to show the distinction between LT and QM is to test if one emission can make two absorptions in coincidence. Such a two-for-one effect contradicts QM and upholds LT. That is what my experiments do: two-for-one. It does that because a fraction of energy (or matter) was pre-loaded ahead of time, and the wave would complete one or more loadings. I have seen up to four-for-one, and have been substantiating my case for 10 years with various tests. Previous tests similar to mine were done with visible light. They call it photons, but I am saying there are no photons. They had no idea of what a workable alternative to QM might be. When they saw one-for-one in their beam-split coincidence tests (you need to read my work for the details), they thought they proved QM. But they were just measuring random noise. First, I figured out a workable loading theory, and then designed the experiments with gamma rays (light) and alpha rays (matter) that would see through the illusion of QM. Many will protest and quote other experiments, like giant molecule diffraction. But I examined their writings and found major flaws. It is my work against a world invested in QM for 80 years, even though many knew QM was sort of nutty. QM falls, and these new experiments reveal an understandable world.  No photons, no spooks. It needs to be reproduced, but it is simple. I was able to run my best experiment at my public Chit-Chat Physics demonstrations last November. Please see and its link to my YouTube video.      

Eric S. Reiter, February 26, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thank you. I love modern physics.

On a barely related note, Pacifica is home to Dianne Seaborg, daughter of Nobel Prize winner Glenn Seaborg, for whom the element "seaborgium" is named.

I am very happy to see that Eric's Unquantum Physics Theory is being published and given serious consideration. Eric's research and science are solid. If he is correct (and I think he is), they will have to change all the science books on the planet.

Can we get a short summary?

(Editor's Note: See revised post.)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)