Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit



How/why unstable of `theory' 'photon' Q1 ? Q2 ?
proton level 'emission' reality 'cosmic r~' proof (A) Answer
atomic review `electron' 'red shift' proof (B) proof (C)

Modern science has gotten stuck in an 'arrogant' mode, almost like ancient Greece, where elite priesthoods ref-01 of 'scientists' disregarded physical reality, thinking it was 'beneath' them.

Ironically, in this problematic area of radiated phenomena - heat & light etc - today's scientists, though they've gathered more data, have even taken a step back from the old Greek's stance.

How?  - Well, ancient Greeks once believed we see an object after some force or thing traveled from the eye to the object and back to the eye.

And - just as ironically - those old Greeks were right!  In a way.

But not the way they thought.  You can find the way it is below

UEF the 'prime' force can be considered as a radially acting compressing and expanding force acting at foci everywhere in the Universe.

a radial `focus'

On the macro scale, science ignores UEF, although it gives us all our rules of mass and motion, inertia and momentum etc ref-02 and, by its decreasing (or increasing) intensity also gives direction to Time's Arrow. ref-03

On the micro scale however the `shape' of UEF compression becomes obvious, for the parameters of UEF define density and dimension of a basic `particle' - let's say a proton.

a proton

almost wholly ruled by root of minus one

the square root of -1

That is to say, by a three dimensional compressive (and expansive) force which - at the proton's dimensional threshold - has an overwhelming and constant compressive effect.

The `proton' will always feel a a maximum UEF compression during this period of the universe's average UEF density. ref-04

[Sign of UEF effect on `proton' is the pattern called `electron' - see below]

The evident differences in UEF's effects are due to thresholds of size and density, within each of which UEF will act according to :-

pq - qp = h/2pi = +x or 0 or -x - for the different facets (attributes) of a given body of matter.

For convenience sake we'll say that pq - qp = 0 for most attributes of most things at the macro scale: our familiar, solid and material scale of buildings, vehicles, human and animal bodies.

Then we can say that pq - qp = +x for some or most attributes at super-macro scales: say the vastly huger scale of galactic super-clusters - on that scale UEF is `expansive' and its effect called "gravity" is therefore felt as a repelling force.

And that pq - qp = -x for some or most attributes at micro and sub-micro: the vastly smaller scale of the sub-atomic, atomic and molecular levels.

Complications are due to fact that both p (implying momentum) and q (implying position) are themselves products of i, amongst other factors.

That is, i - the square root of minus one, or - Ö-1

which, as you might see, has two inseparable but different values, one positive and one negative
(which is why many mathematicians are reduced to calling it an imaginary number while in fact it is the basis of our material universe - endowing all matter with varying degrees of solidity and compelling all expansion or contraction, all repulsion or attraction).

An example of the occasionally mixed nature of those thresholds (due to influence of i on p and q for different attributes), is the effect on gas molecules, which partake of macroscopic gravitational attributes (`gravity' attraction by a sufficiently large mass - like Earth), but have sub-microscopic coherence attributes, mutually repelling one another.

This is the reason for science's inabilty to find regular, logical and meaningful "gas laws", and for those greater failures: total ignorance of the nature of the photon and incomprehension of real cause of gravity.

So UEF holds together the collections of matter that we call "atoms" although a shade less fiercely than with a proton.

a whole atom

an Atom

An atom cannot be said to be 'made up of' protons and neutrons, just as protons cannot be said to be 'made up of' "quarks".

But, if an atom breaks apart - either by 'force' or 'decay' -

- both simply express the degree of local UEF intensity w.r.t. the motion, mass / density of the 'atom' -

- then UEF force will clamp the sundered material into separate protons and/or neutrons etc, or even smaller groupings. ref-05

You can see that the `stability' of an atom is really defined by UEF parameters. ref-06

['Particle accelerators'and suchlike do not not discover ever smaller 'quarklike' particles.  They merely create them, by creating the temporary UEF conditions necessary for such mass/density groupings to exist.

So the `theories' which specify imaginary coherence of all these ever-smaller particles into whole protonic atoms by inventing "gluons" etc are wasted effort.

The lesser particles do not truly exist, until a greater whole is `broken'.

Now let's consider an atom about to break apart.

[showing only vertical and horizontal components of UEF field - the two extremes of UEF action in the case of this atom]

unstable atom

a) This atom is 'unstable',

but presents almost equal opposition to UEF in both planes.

b) begins to alter, still opposing all-round UEF pressure c) The atom changes, allowing a 'pulse' of UEF compression to pass - scientists say it is "emitted perpendicularly" - up and down in this case.

atom splitting atom split

And that pulse is a fast variation in incoming UEF intensity, although the pulse itself travels outwards!

Also - this is clearly the reason for `photons' being produced in pairs, which is otherwise not easily explainable.

We can now see real reason why the pulse is always "permitted to pass" perpendicular to particle's movement.
(Although scientists still insist it's "emitted", they obviously can't say WHY - because only UEF theory explains it).

In fact mere movement - without any `splitting' - can, if fast enough, allow an equalizing pulse to pass across the line of travel - perpendicularly.

Note :- UEF theory is the only successful, rational explanation of "emitting / permitting" radiation: ie. when a particle is accelerated rather than "altered". ref-06

Search for
bremsstrahlung to check out the confusion on this hidden failure of mainstream theory.

(some spelling it

Now we can see why all bodies emit electro-magnetic radiation in some proportion to their particles' movements

Only the UEF Theory fits the facts.

Released pulse is a heat / light photon if small change in electrons, X ray if larger, gamma-ray if a very large change, maybe even affecting nucleus; this depends also on the local intensity of UEF, giving the speed of the transition a) simplified `pulse shape' of photon c) See below for the photon 'frequency' / 'energy' relationship.

'pulse' graph

If we surround the atom with others, and thereby shield it, we decrease local UEF intensity,

and the energy of any emitted pulse will also be decreased
- see `decay' below.

Because the energy of an "emitted" pulse comes from outside of the atom clearly we can provoke the "emission" of pulses simply by moving a stable atom fast enough.

See "Inside" for further details of this major misunderstanding of conventional science - and of 'text-book' scientists.

Now we can see the real, physical reason why nuclear `decay' - in an atomic clock - runs slower when an object is moving fast.

I.e. higher UEF pressure away from Earth's shielding - which slows down cellular or organic activity in `micro-gravity / space' conditions - decreases apparent "instability" of `decaying' material.

Let's take a breather here - and review all the different things we're really talking about when using terms like `change' - `variation' - `radiation'.

In the list below you might notice that energy increases as we go downwards thru types of variation in UEF intensity.


1) 'sequential' variation in UEF density - Time

2) 'spatial' variation in UEF density - which gives effect we call 'gravity'

3) radiating UEF density spatial variation, which we call a 'gravity wave' - although 'text-book scientists' are very confused about this term

4) outward-moving pulse in incoming UEF intensity - which we call 'electromagnetic radiation'

[destructive punch of hard radiation due to UEF's nuclear and molecular binding force changing at high rates, disrupting organic and cellular material; faster or slower rates of change may be less harmful - we hoped, until we checked - here's compilation on e.m.r dangers ref-07a ref-07 ]

5) 'high speed' (definitely f.t.l., maybe `quasi-instantaneous') variation in incoming or outgoing UEF intensity ref-08


Now we'll see where some of the confusion about electromagnetic radiation comes from ref-09

Conventional scientists think that regular pulses of energy can be treated mathematically as if they were "waves" - that is, recurring cyclically

And some scientists then make conclusions about e.m.r. based on the mathematical equations for "waves"

Waves are natural oscillations, a movement from an "initial state" causing further recurring, regular, positive and negative movements

water waves like these in water, on the ocean; or these in air, from a tuning fork tuning fork


electromagnetic radiation

As we have seen, e.m.r. is made up of individual events like the 'gamma-ray' pulse we saw emitted from one atom's break-up

E.m.r. events are like raindrops landing on you.
raindrops Each is an individual, but, if the cloud is large and you are moving fast then you perceive a spurious "frequency" in those raindrops which does not not actually belong to the raindrop

E.M.R. events are wholly ruled by the following factors:-

the masses of any matter involved;

the relative motion of the masses concerned;

the local intensity of the U.E.F. field

Wave Theory versus Particle Theory

In the old days there were 'wave' and 'particle' theories for light, and heat etc. - electromagnetic radiation

But the theories were of the traditional kind which can be headed "Young (waves) versus Einstein and Newton (particles)" .

And none of the theories matched all the facts

Now we still have 'waves' and 'particles' but only to preserve 'Quantum Theory'.

But they still don't fit all those observed facts.

The 'waves' are now claimed to be probability waves - because we are too clumsy to measure both presence and velocity.

[Also - sometimes trying to measure that which doesn't actually exist linearly - that is all the time.  See photon below].

Imaginary 'particles' are now claimed to be somehow swapped between bodies in an unprovable and indeed imaginary game of catch because 'Quantum Theory' will not work without 'magic' exchanges.


Uncertainty Principle, Superposition (of wave-functions), Wave-function collapse, Wave-particle dichotomy, the Complementary principle (not simultaneous wave & particle) - `Magic' contructs: only necessary because `science' had no causal explanations.


Now let's get back to work on the detail of real electromagnetic phenomena.  We've seen - above - how the basic act of radiation works; it's time to clarify some of the scientists misunderstandings.


Before the `photon' we will describe the electron because folk have more entrenched opinions and misconceptions of it.

Realistic consideration of the electron will offend more widely held views - even emotions - than any other subject covered in the UEF index.

The electron is a 'reaction pattern' in UEF intensity.

One - path-oriented - analogy for the electron would be a standing ripple around a rock, whereas the photon could be seen as a free wavelet;

another - energy-oriented - analogy for the electron is a soap-film across a loop, while the photon's is a soap-bubble being blown away from the loop.

The 'electron' pattern has a polarity - i.e. it is incomplete compared to a photon, and biased in space-time.

And under 'normal' conditions it is more or less attached to its parent body of matter.  Which is why an electron can be inferred to have a certain mass, although no-one can measure that apparent mass directly, since it doesn't exist in one place and time, being merely a biased pattern of cyclical coming-together of UEF intensity.

"It appears that an electron can only be objectively specified when it is anchored to a proton or some other material frame of reference" - Sir James Jeans (more right than he knew).

`Electron' patterns - with energy levels depending on the size / shape of parent mass - exist around any body of matter within atomic UEF thresholds. ref-10

The 'incomplete' UEF reaction pattern can be 'completed' - to radiate away as a photon - if a perfectly complementing 'incomplete' pattern, of opposing polarity or opposite bias in time, i.e. a positron, is added to it by stimulation/excitation by adding energy.

We now see why, when `electrons' are forced along or through a conductor (a wire), the conductor's composition changes over time.  The local UEF pressure - which gives protonic / atomic identity to all matter - is being forcibly varied around the conductor - this has an `aging' effect on the material of the conductor.


From the diagrams above we saw how the photon is initiated but there are misconceptions about "frequency".

It would be tempting to think that the time period of the "break" would be the time-period of the resultant photon.


A photon does not `exist' continuously and linearly but comes together as an outgoing pulse in incoming UEF - almost as traffic comes together in slow-moving 'bunches' on the motorway, autobahn, freeway or autostrada - but at very precise intervals.

Onward travel

Traveling outward through the incoming UEF, a photon is only viable so long as those field conditions exist.  Any alteration to its `future path' condition will either change or `collapse' the photon instantaneously.  That is, at the time the path condition changed - but before the photon actually travels that path.

We use the traffic analogy.  Why?

The reverse reverberation - or outward-moving pulse - in incoming UEF continues outwards as a 'photon' for same reason that causes motorway 'bunching':- a mixture of 'slower' multi-speed elements with a 'fast' event group.

Although the `emission' diagram above shows the line a - c as straight we know there is going to be a curve at the start and finish of the pulse, like so -

sloping `S' shaped pulse

UEF pressure has to begin to 'lever' apart the bodies of real mass which are eventually to 'emit' the pulse of UEF equalization that we call a 'photon'.  After the main body of the pulse passes - when the resultant bodies are separated - there is then a 'tailing-off', a UEF equalization.

In effect this introduces two "slower, multi-speed" elements as part of the resulting pulse.

But the central part of the line a - c is straight.  That is the full-power operation of UEF equalization across the space previously occupied by the previously complete body of mass.

The combination of "fast" and "slower multi-speed" elements of the reverberation in UEF sets in train the radiating sequence of "moving bunches" just as moving traffic comes together at intervals on the freeway.

The bunches carry more than average traffic [UEF intensity]; the empty roadway in-between carrying less than average traffic [UEF intensity].

The result is the photon, which although it is a moving, energy-bearing event only fully 'exists' [for detection or energy-delivery purposes] at intervals during its outwardly radiated "transmission".

However at all points in its radiation vista there exists a moving 'part' of the photon - ie. below average, above average or, intermittently, average UEF intensity.

'Polarization' - will have to wait.  However, the 'bunching' of a photon does not occur `all in one place' / `all at one time'.

The coming together of UEF energy points has a radial bias (`angular momentum' again) in a plane.

We can now see why a magnetic field ref-10 is generated each time a photon 'bunches'.  Conventional scientists still cannot explain the linkage of photons with magnetic fields, although they indulge in a great deal of description. ref-11

The 'instantaneous' collapse of the detected photon in the experiment above and in many previous similar experiments confirms the prediction - from UEF Theory - that the UEF force not only travels `instantaneously' but has a mutual linkage.

[From a broadcast 15 December 1999 - recent results from Geneva indicate that this near-instantaneous linkage has been confirmed for paired electrons and now for paired photons separated by up to ten kilometers - ie. at faster-than-light-speed.]

You could say that light - or more accurately electromagnetic radiation - is only an 'accidental' happening, as is the traffic 'bunch'.

But both are 'real' - and energy-bearing.

We can now see what physicists have great difficulty explaining - how a "massless" photon can carry Energy.

Physicists are restricted to saying that Planck's empirical equation: - [ E = h x F ] makes it all right!

(where h = Planck's constant and F = "frequency")

Along with E = m × c2 of course.

But back in reality we can see that at each 'traffic bunch' interval - that is, at every "wavelength" or "pulse of 'frequency' - the photon carries more UEF density than does surrounding space-time.

And similarly at each 'traffic gap' (also once per pulse interval) the photon carries less UEF density than does surrounding space-time.

(Now you know why the photon is theoretically "massless" at rest:  because a photon (energy `bunch') cannot exist when truly 'at rest').

And, pursuing traffic analogy, when an impediment, say a speed-limited tunnel, occurs on the route, the energy of the photon (or traffic `bunch') will actually travel faster through the barrier -

- re-establishing as a photon or `bunch' only when free to do so -

- having passed through the tunnel (at high speed) existing only as the drivers' desires to resume their previous driving pattern -

- which will again cause those slow-moving `bunches'.

Now UEF theory can show:-

i) how the photon carries energy;

ii) why the `normal' speed of a photon (c) is actually an attribute of UEF rather than of `light';

iii) how, when a photon is forbidden velocity c, the energy can travel faster until the photon re-establishes.

[ For time-bias of electron and photon see time.html]

Let's clear up some confusions of mainstream scientists.

Those 'Cosmic Rays'

Cosmic ray particles, as reported in the science journals, have only recently been discovered and are said to have these properties:-

- high speed: up to 99.9% of the speed of light for the minority, most much slower;

- consisting of ions - atomic nuclei stripped of some or all electrons - of either `heavy' (slower) or `light' (faster) atoms;

- having no known process of creation or origin (for the faster ones).

Well, we think that true 'cosmic rays' (faster ones) are products of `jetting' events.


The `heavy', `slower' particles arriving are clearly from events on the Sun or nearby stars: non-cosmic.

However there is a gap between the lower energy levels of those `non-cosmics' and the higher-energy (and higher speed) but lighter particles, as reported.  Think that's an indication we're looking at two different phenomena.

And that the high speed particles are actually lighter because they come from Earth's outer atmosphere.  That is, they've been impacted by an extremely energetic photon: much stronger than your run-of-the-mill gamma ray.

This solves the puzzle of the "cut-off" which would bar long inter-galactic travel-paths for particles - photons do not interact with other photons (cosmic background) as particles would.

And the sources of those stronger-than-yet-known photons are jets; either galactic - from cores of active galaxies whose axes were aligned with (pointing at) us;

(n.b. our Milky Way could be jetting now, we wouldn't know until some thousands of years have gone by);

or the less gigantic but still (literally) awe-inspiring jets from active neutron stars: when detectable, we call them pulsars.

Those 'Redshift Anomalies'

`Redshifts' are often said to be `Doppler effects' (as the pitch of a train-whistle falls after passing an observer).

Please don't be confused by this - it's not quite true!

[A true `Doppler effect' is the compression or rarefaction of sound-waves in air - as in the train-whistle example.  It does not translate directly to light (electro-magnetic radiation) frequencies.

The mis-named `Doppler Radar' actually detects a phase-shift which can be caused by reflection from a moving object - not a `Doppler frequency-shift'.  In fact so-called `Doppler radar' can be fooled when the phase-shift reaches 180 degrees (half a wavelength), because a reflecting object could then be approaching or receeding.  (These are known as `ambiguous' readings and are normally over-ridden by computer routines.)

Astronomical `redshift' refers to the changed position of patterns of bright and dark lines in the spectrum of light (after it's been spread out - by a prism or somesuch - into those rainbow colors).

Dark line patterns are caused by the atomic structure of any matter the light has passed through, while bright line patterns are caused by the atomic structure of matter emitting the light.  I.e. a star like our Sun's spectrum would show, although not exclusively, the pattern of hydrogen.

When known patterns are seen to have moved towards lower frequencies of the spectrum - i.e towards `red' - the light is said to be `redshifted'.

However, we can see that what's actually happening is either a `smooth' change in the energy level of the light (its frequency) or a `quantized' change in the observed energy level of a material's atomic structure and / or the light emitted by it.  Smooth redshift can be called real, while perceived or `quantized' redshift is an artifact.

`Real' or smooth redshift is caused by matter (`gravity'), its distance, and relative movement (`recession velocity') and perhaps by the age of the path.

However a perceived or `quantized' redshift must be due to localized energy emission or transformations - such as can only change in discrete `quanta'.

[In `perceived' redshifts, while the actual `shape' of the atomic structure was unchanged, so that hydrogen was still hydrogen say - and so created the same patterns of lines - its effects on emitted or passing light has moved to a different energy level.  This could be caused under the influence of a local field:  from a stellar or galactic jet say.

Changes in a generated energy level happens in steps of `quanta' because the level (passing a threshold) takes up another phase of the UEF field.

This is what we see in the universe.

Sadly most media, text-books, and even many scientists' thinking is influenced solely by `Doppler' explanations - mis-understanding the basic principles involved.

'Redshift Anomalies' (con't)

We've shown that a UEF effect - 'jetting' - is the probable cause of gamma-ray bursts, quasars etc., and of stellar & galactic core ejecta.  And that these can be blasted out in both directions at relativistic speeds

[See readers questions re: 'jetting']

In other words, strangely mis-matched red shifts compiled by Arp, are are most likely brought about by `jetting' mass.

For one type of anomaly they indicate a fast-rotating magnetic field around a dense, fast rotating mass creating a false `low redshift'.

For the other type they're signalling the unequal redshifts of ejecta coming from a 'normal redshift' center.

Then they mainly indicate the very high (relative) speeds of ejection from the central source object, the atomic energy-level changing effects of the fields which have done the ejecting, and finally other velocities such as overall system movement, including rotation.

[All `jets' are axial - from the poles.  Therefore a galactic jet which is slightly angled towards us would seem to have a large (mostly quantized) `redshift' mostly from the field effect.

But the opposite polar jet would seem to have an even larger redshift, much of it non-quantized or `smooth'.

Ultimately, after enough material has been ejected (maybe forming new galaxies, or, if smaller jets - forming new spiral arms), the angular momentum of that material will impose an new axis of rotation on the whole assembly.

That is, if happening within a galaxy, forming first a `cross-bar', then a spiral, or a second, more `powerful' spiral.

Again, this is what we see in the universe.

UPDATE 2005 - See Conference critical of `Standard Model' of Cosmology - (maybe go Edit - Find for "red shift").


N.a.s.a - `establishment' science - can't accept that they don't know how the cosmos works.  So when they see huge amounts of energy (e.m.r. - light, X-rays or higher) coming from far away, their (militarily inclined and limited) minds always turn to "impact explosions" or "galactic collisions".

Here's latest example - "The trigger was likely the merger of two galaxies, researchers said today." (23 Mar 2006).
Wrong.  Just about as wrong as could be.

`Quasars' are new galaxies being born.  This is an example of typical and widespread phenomena.  Matter is re-distributed in our Universe.

When a central galactic core has enough material in-falling, therefore causing it to spin very fast - it will jet!

Now we'll relax - let's go back to ordinary photons - and sort out some more of the scientists' difficulties

Now we can answer the questions of Richard P Feynman - expressed in his lectures on quantum electrodynamics ["Q.E.D." Penguin Books 1990 ISBN 0-14-012505-1] :-

"we have no satisfactory mechanism to describe even the simplest phenomena, such as partial reflection of light by glass.  We also have no way to predict whether a given photon will be reflected or transmitted by the glass."

Referring to the interference pattern produced by the 'two-slit' type of experiment shown below, he says :-

"Nature has it all cooked up so we'll never be able to figure out how She does it: if we put instruments in to find out which way the light goes, we can find out, all right, but the wonderful interference effects disappear.  But if we don't have instruments that can tell which way the light goes, the interference effects come back! . . .


. . . I have pointed out these things because the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work.  So theoretical physics has given up on that."

But UEF Theory now gives us the real explanation for the "two-slit" mystery.  It can be seen below.

Now, for the first time, those worrying gaps in the "quantum concept" are explained.  And theoretical physics can get back to work.

[In fact the so-called "Quantum Theory" is a mess which consists of gaps between observed phenomena, filled by imaginative but useless calculations of 'probability waves' and 'magic exchanges']

We now have a real operating theory, UEF Theory, which supersedes both quantum 'magic' and 'rubber-sheet' relativity.

Without any gaps.

UEF phenomena (caused by UEF energy)

This section contains `proofs' of UEF phenomena and a response to a challenge posed by many eminent physicists (notably Ridley and Penrose)

[for latest challenge read, see "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. ISBN 0-09-977170-5 referring to the "two-slit experiment"]

NB according to Newtonians, Einsteinians, and Quantum aficionados, these experiments should not show any reaction (except for the pendulum, but maybe NASA hasn't decided yet).

(Proof A )

Here is an experiment to check the true nature of 'photons', 'electrons', 'gravity' (and 'Coriolis effect').

The individual experiment(s) below feature "things" - 'photons' - moving from the LEFT to RIGHT.

We mean to prove that these are influenced - or, in the case of photons, enabled - by the UEF energy entering the page from the RIGHT to LEFT.

[ UEF energy is radial, both incoming and outgoing, but any movement or energy transfer in a particular direction necessarily makes use of the UEF energy arriving from, or departing towards, that direction.]

Further intend to prove:- that the 'electromagnetic force' and the 'gravitational force' are only effects, existing by virtue of UEF interactions.

[There is a pendulum included but we should also have had a crystal growth experiment and, if we had the nerve we'd have a nuclear process in there, to show that the nuclear 'forces' are also only UEF effects.]

combination experiment to detect UEF influence

ALL the monitored experiments will be affected by the ROTOR's presence

1 The current monitored from the X-ray 'photo-electric' target will reduce;

2 The 'interference pattern' will weaken or slip to a diffraction pattern (see B below);

3 The 'infra-red' radiated heat transfer rate will drop;

4 The pendulum swing angle and period will vary

[Note the UEF field can be diminished or distorted by use of a dense rotating mass, but even more efficiently by use of a rotating magnetic field

However the magnetic field presents problems of radiation, which are yet to be measured and allowed for (we don't have a laboratory)

Why should these (predicted) effects happen?


The famous `two-slit experiment' (as within the experiment above)

Because we are partly responding to his challenge, we'll use the diagram from "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. OUP ISBN 0-09-977170-5 (refer to "two-slit")

[Note - we have already confessed privately that our heroes - among today's scientific enquirers - are Roger Penrose, Brian Ridley, Lee Smolin, Ian Stewart (alphabetical order).

The physicists know about it, but they still don't know how it really works.

Why don't they know how it works?

Well, firstly - because the full results are almost never published.

Full results of Two-Slit Experiment

( Proof B )

two slit experiment setup

When a single-frequency light shines through two slits onto a screen, a banded 'interference' pattern results

But if only one slit is open we get this simpler 'diffraction' pattern

simple band - with only one slit open

Switching the light off, opening both slits, and then switching on again, we again get the original 'interference pattern'

many bands - with two slits open again


if we start with only one slit open - with the simple 'diffraction' pattern

simple band - at switch on

and - without switching the light off - open the second slit again, to have two slits open.

Nothing happens!

We still see a simple diffraction pattern - just as if only one slit was open

simple band - although both slits open


This question has been unanswered for generations and plagues today's physicists.

See "Time, Space and Things" B.K. Ridley - Cambridge University Press 1984 and later see "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. OUP ISBN 0-09-977170-5

NO present theories account for this result.

Except the UEF Theory

We've challenged establishment physicists to account for the result.

The answer is below,  plus a test / proof.

Briefly -

Photons moving   arrow right  are enabled (in `advance') by UEF arriving radially from the opposite direction   arrow left

UEF energy is radial, incoming and outgoing; a `photon' travels toward one direction as a radial pulse in - making use of - UEF energy arriving from that direction.

Detail -
With only one slit open UEF intensity & freq/phase gives photons only `direct' routes.

But when the light is switched on through two slits, photons are allowed multiple preferred pathways of travel in oncoming UEF ( see 'interference pattern'.)

Intensity & freq/phase of incoming UEF dictates number of paths and ratio of photons taking each, with central band getting barely more than neighboring paths.

But when light is on with only one slit open, subsequently opening second slit cannot allow those multiple pathways to both potential photon streams.


The photons from the first slit are already using that incoming UEF energy.

That simple statement ends the heartache and puzzlement of those who've scratched their heads over "two-slit experiment" for three or four (or more) generations.

In colloquial terms :- if 'light' were a forward-traveling discrete phenomenon (an independent thing ref-01), then opening the second slit would restore a complex 'interference' pattern.

But that does not happen - therefore the UEF explanation of `two-slit problem' invalidates "wave / particle" & "relativity / quantum" theories.

Despite this fact, physicists cling to belief that 'light' (e.m.r) is an independent, forward-traveling phenomenon. ref-01

The UEF theory says that light (emr) is a set of reverberations traveling outwards using incoming UEF energy.

When incoming UEF energy is being used by an established photon stream, a (potential) second photon stream cannot 'share' that UEF energy and therefore cannot be established.

[Maybe check the - in our estimation - two `better of many' books - "Time, Space and Things"by B.K. Ridley - Cambridge University Press 1984;

and later "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. OUP ISBN 0-09-977170-5 ]

Test / Proof
With the two-slit experiment setup and with an interference pattern displaying on the screen, introduce a cylinder made from lead, or gold etc behind the screen and in line with one of the two slits.

It will be seen that, although the gold/lead impedance is beyond the interference path of the photons, it has diminished the energy available - and so prevents an interference pattern forming.

Therefore the photons travelling from the source, via the slits, to the screen, actually get their energy from a radial field travelling from the screen towards the light source.

Any change in that field, no matter what distance before or behind any observed photons, will instantaneously affect them.  This is the real cause of experimental results classed as apparent `time-travel'.

Confirming experiment

( Proof C )

proving that light is not a discrete forward-traveling phenomenon but dependent on incoming UEF energy.

For clear results the experiment has light beams aligned N-S and parallel to ground.
That is, not pointing at any planet or rising/setting Sun or Moon.

experiment set-up

Measurements are taken - from positions at sides & to the rear (left) of light source - of the light-energy reflected from light circle on screen of metallic reflective substance.

Then a narrow UEF 'shield' (dense metal bar) is placed behind (to right of) screen.

in operation

'Shield' is as long as possible, maybe 10 - 20 meters of lead or more dense material, and about half diameter of light circle on-screen.

(`Shield' is exactly aligned with light beam)

Result: Light energy reflected from inner area of light-circle will decrease.

That is, decreasing amount of UEF available in the "impossible future path" of the photon will decrease the photon energy produced.

Note : rotating 'shield' around long axis increases effect, lessening toward axial line.
from footnotes & jets - axial line width = maybe one proton or so

[You probably realized that beam `position and pointing' aims to rule out accidental alignment of light-beams with nearby massive bodies.  Bodies external to solar system should be too distant to affect such readings, in any marked way.]


1 - the UEF field can be diminished or distorted by using dense rotating mass, but even more efficiently using rotating magnetic field.

However magnetic field presents problems of radiation which are yet to be measured and allowed for.
(We don't have a laboratory)

2 - a diminution or distortion of the UEF field affects previously viable photon pathways - hence results in A and B above.

You might notice that UEF Theory and its confirming experiments give a causal explanation of photon travel and light pathways - for the first time.

Up to now they've had only a priori "least action" or "shortest time" rules, as if photons could think ahead and make decisions before action.

Most conspicuous (and causally impossible) photon "choices" were those of `reflection', `refraction' and `interference'.

Now it is clear that photons are constrained to form in, and take the paths of, available UEF intensity and `phase'.

Nothing can account for these results except UEF Theory

(that's the reason for these experiments)

Challenge - Can establishment physicists account for these results?   No!

[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson

this page


Share This