Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

  • #1
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
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.
MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLI PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
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 FREQUENCY OF PHOTON IS THE FIRST SINGULAR POINT ON THE SCALE OF LIGHT FREQUENCIES.
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.
A BLACK HOLE IS THE SECOND SINGULAR POINT ON THE SCALE OF LIGHT FREQUENCIES.
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.

EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.

FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.

Let's consider well-known relations:
[tex] E=mc^2 [/tex]
and
[tex] E=h \nu\ [/tex]
whence [tex] mc^2=h \nu\ [/tex]
or
[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]
where
[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.
A CHARGE THIS A MIRROR REFLECTION OF MASS CONCERNING THE FREQUENCY OF PHOTON. THE MAGNET FORCE THIS A MIRROR REFLECTION OF GRAVITY FORCE CONCERNING THE FREQUENCY OF PHOTON.

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.
Thus
THE PHOTON IS THE ANTIPODE OF BLACK HOLE
As well as
THE BLACK HOLE IS THE ANTIPODE OF PHOTON.
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 –
OUR WORLD IS CREATED OF LIGHT.

2003 Michael F. Dmitriyev
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
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.
 
  • #3
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by russ_watters
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.
Are you meaning, that observable properties of atom do not differs from observable properties of infralow frequencie radiowave? I cannot agree with it.
 
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Are you meaning, that observable properties of atom do not differs from observable properties of infralow frequencie radiowave? I cannot agree with it.
That doesn't make any sense. If you mean:
Do you mean that the observed properties of atoms differ from the observed properties of ULF radio waves?
Then the answer is yes. They do. Very very very very much so.
 
  • #5
Brad_Ad23
502
1
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.
 
  • #6
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by russ_watters
That doesn't make any sense. If you mean: Then the answer is yes. They do. Very very very very much so.
Okay!And all these distinctions depend only on one thing. It is a frequency of light. That is how light is observed to work.
 
  • #7
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
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.
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.
 
  • #8
Brad_Ad23
502
1
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.
 
  • #9
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
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.
Brad,
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.
 
  • #10
McQueen
256
0
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.
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
 
  • #11
Brad_Ad23
502
1
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".
 
  • #12
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
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".
Brad,
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?
 
  • #13
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by McQueen
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

McQueen,
Thanks for link. I have looked it and have not found out anything interesting or new.
Same was chewed at last 100 years.
 
  • #14
Brad_Ad23
502
1
Yes Mike, there are objections. In fact every observation is an objection. Learn some real physics for a change, will you?
 
  • #15
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes Mike, there are objections. In fact every observation is an objection. Learn some real physics for a change, will you?
Brad,
Yours concrete objections which refute my point, please.
 
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Brad,
Yours concrete objections which refute my point, please.
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.
 
  • #17
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by russ_watters
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.
Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality.

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?
 
  • #19
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
In addition to an initial post.

I have attached this post to initial one.
 
Last edited:
  • #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.
 
  • #21
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by neutroncount
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.
...............................................
It was deleted by me.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality.
That isn't what Occam's Razor is for. Occam's Razor is for comparing two different theories that both ACCURATELY describe reality. To apply Occam's Razor you first have to start with an ACCURATE description of reality. Your description is inaccurate.
So, I have made that up to me nobody could make. I have explained a general origin of mass and magnetism. I have proved, also, one of a basic postulate of the Bible –
OUR WORLD IS CREATED OF LIGHT.
Lol, I get it now. Funny joke.
 
  • #23
vlamir
149
0
Originally posted by neutroncount
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.
Bertrand Russell did not understand, that between the fool and the fanatic the infinity stretches.
 
  • #24
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
That isn't what Occam's Razor is for. Occam's Razor is for comparing two different theories that both ACCURATELY describe reality. To apply Occam's Razor you first have to start with an ACCURATE description of reality. Your description is inaccurate.
I guess, that PF not a place for accommodation and discussions of the whole theory. The new theory begins with new idea or some point. I have offered my own idea for discussion. This idea does not contradict existing observations. Taking into account, that observations and theories are different things, I do not think that the contradiction of new idea with the existing theory is a lack. The new idea should be such by definition. Perhaps, you consider, what the existing theory explains all phenomena and does not require development?
In any case I would like to hear concrete opinions on idea, instead of the common reasoning. Particularly on properties of a particle or a wave depending on the placement on a scale of frequencies.
So?

Lol, I get it now. Funny joke.
It is not the joke as seems to you. It is quite serious. Perhaps, you have data on similar idea and its author? Then inform, please.
BTW, each person can operate only the volume of information, which he able to perceive.
 
  • #25
vlamir
149
0
Michael,
I feel, that in your thoughts there is a rational kernel.
Please, think on these pictures - left-spiral atom and photon.
Energy circulates in rings with speed of light and twists on the left spiral.
Magnetic component in photons is green.
Quite clearly, that exist and right-spiral hydrogen atoms.
Maybe, these figures will direct you to new thoughts.
I wish you successes.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/h_atom.gif [Broken]
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/photon.gif [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
This idea does not contradict existing observations.
It does. Sorry. You are going to waste a lot of your time by continuing to try to develop this idea. You'd help yourself out a lot by learning some physics. Then you would know what observations say about light and not waste time developing ideas that are contrary to reality.
Perhaps, you consider, what the existing theory explains all phenomena and does not require development?
No one said any such thing. Existing theories are well known to be incomplete. What you propose is not one of the ways in which our existing theories on light are incomplete. What you are describing would be a fundamental property of light and is contrary to observation.
In any case I would like to hear concrete opinions on idea, instead of the common reasoning. Particularly on properties of a particle or a wave depending on the placement on a scale of frequencies.
You can't get any more fundamental than being specifically wrong in what observations say about light. There is really nothing else to say.
It is not the joke as seems to you. It is quite serious. Perhaps, you have data on similar idea and its author? Then inform, please.
Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg. I recommend reading some of their work.
 
  • #27
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.

Fear not; I am not going to introduce my own project yet again. But the above statement is not satisfactory . Are you saying that Vlamir's
a) mathematics are wromg or are you saying
b) they are correct but do not match observations or finally, are you saying
c) they are wrong mathematically as well as not matching observations.

If reply (b) is your answer I will develope arguement on a seperate forum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
vlamir
149
0
Elas,
I consider, that your researches are very interesting also part from them deserves steadfast attention.
Recently young Russian physicist Sergey Polyschuk won the gold medal and premium of Russian Academy of Sciences for new theoretical developments in physics of nanoworld. The scientific work by Sergey is bounded with researching of ring energy elements of nanoworld.
Your ideas and the ideas by S. Polyschuk have many conterminous features.
I approve of your sentence about a new separate forum. But only it should be one big forum (not a lot of small).
 
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
Originally posted by elas
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.

Fear not; I am not going to introduce my own project yet again. But the above statement is not satisfactory . Are you saying that Vlamir's
a) mathematics are wromg or are you saying
b) they are correct but do not match observations or finally, are you saying
c) they are wrong mathematically as well as not matching observations.

If reply (b) is your answer I will develope arguement on a seperate forum
I haven't looked at the math. Frankly, his ideas are so wrong as to not be ready to apply any math to. In any case, if his math matches his logic, then the answer is c. If his math matches reality, then he doesn't understand his own idea. And I find that unlikely.

Remember also, having the arithmetic correct is not the same as having the math correct. 1+1=2 (for example) is a true statement but it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of light.
 
  • #30
Frankly, his ideas are so wrong as to not be ready to apply any math to.

MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.


russ_watters

The three statements made by Vlamir are not just "ideas" they are claimed to be statements of mathematical fact. I need an independent comfirmation or refutation of each statement.

Not having had the mathematical training of either yourself or Vlamir I am unable to check his work. But by using graphs, Emsley's 'Table of Elements' and The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment, I have shown various relationship including the cause of the relationship between vaccum wave, em wave and atomic radii. If Vlamir work is correct then (regardless of the opinion of quantum physicist) particle physicist have for the first time ever, an explanation of the cause of the internal structure of particles and atoms.
Given that several universities are working on a possible vacuum theory to replace relativity and that my work is based on vacuum fields then the statements made by Vlamir could be the key to a totally new theory that does not replace current theory but makes a similar adjustment to it as that made by Einstein to the work of Newton (on a lesser scale, of course). For that reason it is important to know wether they are mathematically correct or not. If they are correct then we can start debating the quality of the idea.

Vlamir

The list of scientist who have intially been derided for their ides is far to long to repeat, (and the number of wrong ideas that have been eagerly accepted is not all that short). Do not be disheartened by snap judgements but keep insisting on constructive criticism. I am starting on an alternative explanation of magnetism (not new laws but new vacuum based explanations) this will take some time. Meanwhile I shall try and keep up with your work
regards
elas
 
  • #31
vlamir
149
0
Two phenomena, which underlay modern physical theories, are constructed on two fictions by scientists XIX and XX of centuries.
The first phenomenon is the dualism of wave and particle.
The second phenomenon is the transmutation of mass and energy.
The first fiction is the fundamental particle.
The second fiction is the formalism "mass".

If we shall eliminate both fictions from phenomena, then remains with reality:
Wave = Energy.

The reason of our obstinate misunderstanding of the reality is, that training of man to any theories represents the targeted process of cultivating of stereotypes in consciousness and subconsciousness of the man.
It is the Pavlov's theory, which, it is necessary to tell, still never has yielded of failure.
I consciously speak, that it is zombeing of students. For students a lot of theoretical material give, and then require good knowledge its material. Complexity, multiformity and problemness of the experimental facts they should find out already after training-zombeing.
 
  • #32
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
Originally posted by elas

MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.


The three statements made by Vlamir are not just "ideas" they are claimed to be statements of mathematical fact. I need an independent comfirmation or refutation of each statement.
Elas,
I join to your kind words concerning the works of vlamir. I have too respect to him. I wish vlamir the further successes and the deserved recognition. But, I am sorry, elas. This the statements made by me. This is my own ideas. Look at an initial post of this thread, please.
Best regards.
Michael F. Dmitriyev.
 
  • #33
Micheal

My deepest apologies, I do not know how but I thought I was dealing with one person instead of two (Micheal and Vlamir). This mistake arises because I only get short periods on my computer and old age is affecting my ability to make quick judgements, so I concentrate on trying to make a considered reply rather than checking out that I am addressing the right person. I will be more carefull in future.

I do not entirely agree with your latest submission but I need a little time to put my case in order. The most exciting thing is that between us we have linked wave to mass and radii to mass while both agreeing that the term 'mass' should really be replaced with 'energy'. So we have the start of a theory that brings the size of particles and atoms, together with their particular energy and wave structure. The fact that we dissagree over the existence or non-existence of particles is a matter for further debate. Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
regards
elas
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
21,857
8,822
Originally posted by elas
Frankly, his ideas are so wrong as to not be ready to apply any math to.

MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.


russ_watters

The three statements made by Vlamir are not just "ideas" they are claimed to be statements of mathematical fact. I need an independent comfirmation or refutation of each statement.
[?] [?] If what the math says is observed in the real world to be wrong, then its wrong. I'm not sure how else to explain it. 1+1 may equal 2, but that doesn't tell us anything of significance about the nature of light. His first "statement of mathematical fact" is is somethinig that could be measured directly if it were true. Specifically, if light had/carried mass, then a light source would also be a source of gravity. You could measure it. DATA. His "mathematical fact" is CONTRARY to DATA. It is wrong.
For that reason it is important to know wether they are mathematically correct or not. If they are correct then we can start debating the quality of the idea.
Let me explain another way. You start with data/observations, you fit a theory to it (apply math in this case) and then draw a conclusion, then you compare your conclusion to other observations. You can build a little matrix with 4 possible conditions and outcomes:

1. Correct data, correct math
2. Correct data, incorrect math
3. Incorrect data, incorrect math
4. Incorrect data, correct math

Now, it should be obvious what sort of conclusions this leads to. Only case 1 will lead to a correct conclusion. The other three will not.

Now, is the math correct? Dunno. But as you can see, its irrelevant. Since the conclusion is observed to be wrong, either the starting data is wrong or the math is wrong. If I had to guess, I 'd guess he did his arithmetic right, just with wrong starting data. Thats how these things usually go. If the people who develop these ideas had a better understanding of physics, they wouldn't be trying to develop these ideas. They would know that they are contrary to observed reality.
 
  • #35
if light had/carried mass, then a light source would also be a source of gravity. You could measure it. DATA. His "mathematical fact" is CONTRARY to DATA. It is wrong.

This has been debated on various forums. There is a theoretical mass for light that is roughly 1/3 on the lowest mass measureable experimentally. So the conclusion is only observably wrong because of the limitations of the equipment used to conduct the experiment.

However, my interest does not lie solely in the light aspect of Micheal's work but in the linkage between electromagnetic waves and mass in general. You will I trust agree that each particle and atom has its own peculiar wave structure, then if Micheal has found a link between wave and mass, he has made a significant contribution to Particle Physics.

The transmission of light is subject to many questions and is a long way from being satisfactorily explained (see Enc. Brit.), so I would ask you to put that to one side and return to my request, "is Micheal[/B mathematically correct?, if he is then we can got down to the heart of the matter which is not necessarily concerned with bosons but rather with baryons and leptons.
 

Suggested for: Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
307
Replies
2
Views
708
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
512
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
423
Replies
1
Views
188
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
746
Top