Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

  1. Oct 22, 2003 #1
    Let's present a scale of frequencies of light. For initial we’ll take frequency of visible light. Here particle / wave duality is shown fifty- fifty.
    At increase or decrease of frequency this proportion is broken.

    Frequency increasing.
    Properties of a particle start to prevail of properties of a wave.
    The gamma radiation, for example, possesses properties of a particle in the greater degree, than properties of a wave.
    On frequency 1.930605x10 ^ 18 Hz we can see hydrogen [This value of frequency is result of researches of remarkable Russian scientist Poljansky V.N. (vlamir)]
    Further on a scale there are all elements of Mendeleyev's table in ascending order of their nuclear mass.

    On this range of frequencies the duality is absent – light exists as particles.
    Application of mass of atom of hydrogen as the unit of measurement of mass of atoms of other elements is wrongly. The proof of it is not the whole values of mass of atoms of other elements in these units. I assert, that the periodic system of elements should be constructed on a frequency principle and a unit of measurements of mass of atoms should be a frequency of photon.
    Frequency decreasing.
    Here the return phenomenon is observed.
    Properties of a wave prevail of properties of a particle.
    At radiowaves of a long-wave range, for example, it is impossible to find out a properties of particle.
    In a range of frequencies from the bottom border of infra-red radiation close to zero the duality of light is absent also. It is electromagnetism (EM).The reality exists in the current Plank time only. It is the minimal cycle of time. The continuity is prodigal. Discreteness is economic. The nature always chooses an optimum variant. Any object (the particle or any their combination) has a cycle of time inherent in it. Time for each object individually and represents the counter working on subtraction. From a birth to death. All time cycles are synchronized by the minimal cycle of time. It is fair both for macroobjects, and for microobjects.
    Time is connected to frequency of a wave the return relation.
    It is possible to tell, that the carrying wave of the maximal frequency corresponds to the minimal cycle of time and the cycle of time of object corresponds to a combination of frequencies or a data set. Let’s take a look at the scale of light frequencies. It possesses the property of symmetry. Moreover, this symmetry exists concerning two points of a scale, i.e. it is double symmetry. To say, these are VERY STRANGE POINTS. The first point is on frequency of visible light.
    Here the magnetic and gravity properties ASPIRE TO ZERO. But PROCESS of ACHIEVEMENT of ABSOLUTE ZERO is INFINITE. Hence, it is the singular point.
    The second point UNITES the opposite ends of a scale. Here the magnetic and gravity forces aspire to indefinite great value. It is a Black Hole.
    But. Two infinity cannot exist separately. Actually it is ONE INFINITY. TWO SINGULAR POINTS are MIRROR in RELATION of EACH OTHER. It defines a MIRROR of FREQUENCIES which, in turn, DEFINES THE MAGNETIC AND GRAVITY PROPERTYES.
    Two mirror singular points provide ETERNAL MOVEMENT and represent the oscillator which recycles the universe with the maximal frequency 1/Planck Time.

    Each object with each time unit loses unit of the data set. This process is observed as radiation of a photon of the certain frequency. But radiation of a photon does not occur in "anywhere" and absorption does not occur "anywhere". Only on channels “ object – object ”. All objects are capable to absorb a data set ( photons) which have supplementing their set up to initial one. It is the process of regeneration.



    Let's consider well-known relations:
    [tex] E=mc^2 [/tex]
    [tex] E=h \nu\ [/tex]
    whence [tex] mc^2=h \nu\ [/tex]
    [tex] m=k\nu\ [/tex]
    here k= h/c^2
    This new relation proves my rightness.
    Further accepting
    [tex] \nu\ = f_w [/tex] – [tex]f_p [/tex]
    [tex] f_w [/tex] - frequency of object's wave
    [tex] f_p [/tex]- frequency of photon
    for [tex] f_w > f_p[/tex]
    we have positive value of mass.
    It provides STRONG FORCE inside particle and GRAVITY FORCE between particles .
    for [tex] f_w < f_p [/tex]
    we have negative (mirror) value.
    It is the CHARGE inside particle and MAGNET FORCE outside one.

    Thus, on the scale of light frequencies are:
    * A constant magnetic dipole with a maximal value of magnetic force- at frequency close to zero (length of a wave --> infinity). It has no mass in principle. It is one end of a scale;

    **In the middle of this scale there is a visible light - photon. It has no mass as well as has no magnetic properties. Therefore I have chosen it as a zero point of their general scale. Visible light is a border between gravitation and magnetism. It is a reason of its amazing properties and duality behavior. Here there is a balancing between zero values of an gravity and magnetic forces.

    ***Object having the maximal mass (gravity force) at the maximal frequency (length of a wave --> the zero) – it is a Black Hole. It is other end of a scale.
    On the one hand, this object should not have magnetic properties. On the other hand, achievement of an absolute zero (by the length of wave ) is infinite process.
    From this point of view the end points of a scale are equivalent.
    It means, that the Black Hole is the general point of the both ends of a scale, i.e. the scale of light frequencies does close in this point. Here there is a balancing between the maximal values of gravitational and magnetic forces.
    As well as
    A wave it is always a wave. At any displays of its properties on a scale of frequencies.
    Change of properties of a wave depending on its frequency is an attribute of interaction with other wave.
    All these properties are shown on a background of a base carrying wave of the maximal frequency which is generated constantly by the Black Hole.
    If "switch off" the Black Hole then our universe will stop the existence.
    All observable phenomena are consequence of an interference of waves.
    I am keeping good old concept, that one wave can exist on a background of other CARRYING WAVE. Thus frequency of a carrying wave should be, at least, 2 times more than a frequency of modulating wave. It is confirmed experimental data.
    Besides at frequency modulation on which principles our universe is constructed, there should be some frequency of quantization. It defines an accuracy of approximation of the form of a real wave to an ideal wave. It is confirmed experimental data too.
    Hence, such things for maintenance of work of our universe are necessary:
    - stable oscillator of the carrying frequency;
    - carrying wave;
    - modulating wave;
    - frequency of quantization.
    The stable oscillator on a base of two singular mirror points (see above) is realized. The carrying wave has the maximal frequency 1/Planck Time.
    The modulating waves is all objects of the universe.
    The Frequency of quantization has two levels:
    1. The basic frequency of quantization corresponds to the frequency of carrying wave.
    2. An additional frequency of quantization corresponds to the frequency of photon.
    The first level defines the properties of channels "object - object" or of intervals between objects and is shown as GRAVITATY and MAGNETIC FORCES.
    The second one defines internal properties of objects and is shown as STRONG FORCE and the CHARGE.

    Light has appeared as the unique "element" from which our universe is constructed.

    So, I have made that up to me nobody could make. I have explained a general origin of gravity and magnet forces as well as strong force and charge.They are mirror reflection of each other on the general scale of frequencies. I have proved, also, one of a basic postulate of the Bible –

    2003 Michael F. Dmitriyev
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 22, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.
  4. Oct 23, 2003 #3
    Are you meaning, that observable properties of atom do not differs from observable properties of infralow frequencie radiowave? I cannot agree with it.
  5. Oct 23, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That doesn't make any sense. If you mean:
    Then the answer is yes. They do. Very very very very much so.
  6. Oct 23, 2003 #5
    Indeed. No matter what light frequency you look at, it displays the same particle/wave duality. The only things different are the wavelength and energy. Now, if said photon of a certain frequency is being used to accelerate a particle, then the particle will start to take on more point particle properties because its deBroglie wavelength will shrink towards zero, but can still never reach zero. And then when you factor in the HUP, if we carefully monitor the particles momentum, we will have less and less of an idea where exactly it is. But as for photons themselves in light streams, a photon is a photon. Just having a different energy and characteristic wave front.
  7. Oct 23, 2003 #6
    Okay!And all these distinctions depend only on one thing. It is a frequency of light. That is how light is observed to work.
  8. Oct 23, 2003 #7
    Frequency of EM waves (light) and its front are not interconnected. The front of a wave or the form of fluctuations defines presence and quantity of harmonics. Sine form fluctuation has no harmonics while pulses of the rectangular form have unlimited number of harmonics. Frequency of fluctuations at change of front does not change.
  9. Oct 23, 2003 #8
    Mike, frequency and wavelength are very much related.
    &lambda; = c/&nu; That alone is basic.

    The rest of your post however makes no sense. "The form functions have no harmonics but rectangular forms have unlimited harmonics." Wouldn't a rectangular form be itself a fluctuation? The answer is yes.
  10. Oct 24, 2003 #9
    Read my last post attentively. I have told:
    “ Sine form fluctuation has no harmonics while pulses of the rectangular form have unlimited number of harmonics. ”
    You quote me in another way:
    " the form functions have no harmonics but rectangular forms have unlimited harmonics. "
    In result the sense was completely deformed.
    Certainly, frequency and length of a fluctuation have strong interconnection.
    But, Brad, frequency and front are the different things.
  11. Oct 24, 2003 #10
    I agree . One of the main characteristics of photons is their ability to retain their identity , if photons continued to increase their wave length equivavlent to their loss of energy , we would have no idea of what the Universe is all about . We would be like blind people trying to figure out what came from where. Photons do increase their wave-lengths but within definite limits. See http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/natureoflight for a new theory on how this takes place.McQueen
  12. Oct 24, 2003 #11
    Ah, I admit I read sine as "since". But a sine wave does indeed have a harmonic property to it.

    And regardless, photons are not observed to act as you state. If they did, we would not be able to do gamma ray astronomy. Now an interesting thing to realize is that gamma rays diffract less than radio waves. You might liken this to be more particle like, but it is simply because gamma rays have a much much much shorter wavelength than radio waves. They still do difract as if they were waves of their wavelength. But by no means do they seem more "particle like".
  13. Oct 24, 2003 #12
    You are not right again. Sine wave fluctuations HAVE no HARMONICS.
    The method of measurement of harmonious distortions is based on it. The sine wave signal of the DEFORMED FORM has harmonics. Find the corresponding literature and be convinced of it. I hope to not come back any more to this question.
    Now the second part of your post.
    Gamma rays are not radio waves, because they are completely deprived of magnetic properties. But they already have mass, as against visible light because their frequency is much higher. Asserting it we recognize direct dependence of mass on frequency of fluctuations. Look after my point once again.
    From the zero value of frequency up to visible light magnetic properties are present, but a mass is absent.
    Visible light neutral. It has no mass and has no magnetic properties. It¡¦s acceptable name is "photon".
    Further, in a direction of frequency increasing, magnetic properties completely are absent, and attributes of mass start to be shown. More frequency „³ more energy „³ more mass.
    There are objections?
  14. Oct 24, 2003 #13
    Thanks for link. I have looked it and have not found out anything interesting or new.
    Same was chewed at last 100 years.
  15. Oct 24, 2003 #14
    Yes Mike, there are objections. In fact every observation is an objection. Learn some real physics for a change, will you?
  16. Oct 24, 2003 #15
    Yours concrete objections which refute my point, please.
  17. Oct 25, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It appears you already know the answers, you just refuse to accept them. What you are saying is directly contrary to the way em radiation is observed to work. Existing theories on the nature of em radation are the way they are because thats how em radiation is observed to work in real life. They are not wrong, you are wrong. If you refuse to accept that, there isn't anything we can do to help you.

    Like he said: learn (and accept) some real physics.
  18. Oct 25, 2003 #17
    Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality.
  19. Oct 25, 2003 #18
    That doesn't mean it's true. If you refuse to take account for what is really observed in nature, that's your own ignorance. Nature isn't simple. Who says it has to be?
  20. Oct 26, 2003 #19
    In addition to an initial post.

    I have attached this post to initial one.
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2003
  21. Oct 26, 2003 #20
    Damn....you ARE a psycho! You're basing your extremely losely based theory on the bible, and than coming up with hypotheses already shown not to be true. I give you credit though. You push your crackpottery as far as it can go.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook