Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

In summary: The particle/wave duality is shown 50-50 in frequency. At increase or decrease of frequency this proportion is broken. 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. Further on a scale there are all elements of Mendeleyev's table in ascending order of their nuclear mass.
  • #176
Originally posted by pallidin
Prediction #1: Blue-shifting depending on the stars magnetic field? Well, I have seen no evidence of this apart from the "blue-shift" being attributed to the stars movement towards us(or Earth towards it)
It almost sounds like he's talking about the actual color of the star and not the red/blue shift: As if Betlegeuse is red and Sirius is blus because of their magnetic field, not their temperature.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #177
Originally posted by Nereid
Data please!

There are huge amounts of data about stars - magnetic fields, spectra (not just optical), masses, radii, ... - and much of it is publicly available!, e.g. through the internet. Please get some of this data, analyse it, and present your results so we can make our own evaluations. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but the kind of hand-waving you have written should be kept to yourself, until and unless you have quantitative data to back it up.
Your offer will demand from me too much time. Therefore I suggest another decision. I’ll make the table of dependence of a spectrum of radiation of stars from their magnetic and gravity field. Then you compare them to existing catalogues. It will be easy for you since I guess what the astronomy is your specialization.
If you mean the aurora, then yes; there's a very good set of explanations, involving the solar wind, O and N atoms, etc. Besides, if your idea were correct, and "polar glowing" were presented as evidence, then the non-observation of "polar glowing" around magnets hundreds, thousands, and even tens or hundreds of thousands of times stronger than the Earth's would be strong obserational proof that your idea is wrong. Further, you don't have to take my word for it; the Earth's dipole field is quite weak, compared to an ordinary 'fridge magnet, let alone a good high school bar magnet. Have you seen "polar glowing" around these magnets? If your idea is correct, and scales linearly, this glowing around an ordinary bar magnet should probably be bright enough to blind you!
Not so. Here important not only a value of magnetic force, but the size of dipole also. Division of beams becomes seen only through some tens of kilometers. May be you are have forgotten about suggested by you relative deflection 5 microradians?

OK, the radio part of the EM spectrum gets seriously bent then, and I should have used pulsars as my example, not magnetars (pulsars' magnetic fields are weaker than magnetars' are, but pulsars emit copious quantities of radio EM; according to your idea, none of the radio EM would escape).
Not so. The pulsar it is the rotating system of two stars i.e. it is the rotating magnetic dipole. According to my scale it is the usual generator of radiowaves.
 
  • #178
Originally posted by russ_watters
It almost sounds like he's talking about the actual color of the star and not the red/blue shift: As if Betlegeuse is red and Sirius is blus because of their magnetic field, not their temperature.
The initial spectrum of radiation of a various stars (near their surface) cannot sharply differ, as all of them on one "fuel" are working. This work cannot be carried out in a wide range of temperatures, since the star or will blow up or will quickly cool down. It cannot decay for a long time, cooling down as a coal in fireplace. Thus, the temperature of all stars is approximately identical. The observable spectrum of a star depends only on its magnetic and gravity field.
BTW, temperature of a coal of red color about 500 C degrees only. Has Betelgeuse the such temperature?
 
  • #179
OK, guys, let's cut the crap, NOW.
The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.

Pallidin
 
  • #180
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
The initial spectrum of radiation of a various stars (near their surface) cannot sharply differ, as all of them on one "fuel" are working. This work cannot be carried out in a wide range of temperatures, since the star or will blow up or will quickly cool down. It cannot decay for a long time, cooling down as a coal in fireplace. Thus, the temperature of all stars is approximately identical. The observable spectrum of a star depends only on its magnetic and gravity field.
BTW, temperature of a coal of red color about 500 C degrees only. Has Betelgeuse the such temperature?
Ok, so that is what you are saying: you don't understand how stars work either.
Your offer will demand from me too much time.
This is work you are required to have already done before you can make such bold assertions. Without doing the work to prove your hypotheses, you have nothing but idle speculation under the guise of a well-developed theory.
The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.
 
  • #181
Originally posted by pallidin
OK, guys, let's cut the crap, NOW.
The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.

Pallidin
Here a quote from
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1066_1.asp
Quote:
The result: a tiny extra frequency shift in Cassini’s radio signals.

It is the establishment physics at which the most powerful equipment is available.
I have already told above, that I have no such equipment. Why you demand from me more exact result than observable effect which for the establishment physics is allowed?
About mathematics. Look my initial post once again. There you’ll see the formula determining direct dependence of mass (gravity) from a photons frequency.
 
  • #182
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I have already told above, that I have no such equipment. Why you demand from me more exact result than observable effect which for the establishment physics is allowed?
We demand evidence because the claims you make require it. If you have no such evidence, then there is no basis for your claims.

Also, I don't really see the point of posting that quote. That quote refers to a GR effect and the fact that their measurements validated it to within 1 part in 40,000. If you're saying that your predictions would be outside the ability of such an experiment (or any experiment) to detect, like I said above, that means you have no evidence to support your hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
  • #183
Michael, my last post may have been a little harsh, and I certainly do not want to "sour" your experience and communication in these forums. Though I definitely stand by the gist of my message, I feel compelled to offer my apologies of the tone I used.
I was getting irritated, and it resulted in a generally unprofessional communication from me to you.
So again, please accept my apologies.

Michael, it is quite clear to me that you are a very creative person with a passion for new discoveries in science. I do not know your levels of education in physics or the sciences in general, but I am convinced from your writings that if you were further educated(formally or self-taught) you would have the potential to go far.

Since this is Theory Developement, everyone is free to offer speculations. Even "full-blown" speculations. This is totally fine and WELCOME. After all, that's what this particular forum in PF is for.

If you haven't noticed, Russ, Nereid, myself and others have been trying to help you: Help you to validate your theory and methods of approach. We are simply trying to assist you develop your own theory under acceptable standards. Yes, expect to be challenged here! How else can proper development proceed! Most importantly, Michael, one should welcome the challenge, as do we not both learn through it?

Please listen carefully to what Russ(and others) have written to you; there is some great information and advise that will assist you now, and in the future.
 
  • #184

Attachments

  • the_table.pdf
    34.4 KB · Views: 497
  • #185
Originally posted by pallidin
Michael, my last post may have been a little harsh, and I certainly do not want to "sour" your experience and communication in these forums. Though I definitely stand by the gist of my message, I feel compelled to offer my apologies of the tone I used.
I was getting irritated, and it resulted in a generally unprofessional communication from me to you.
So again, please accept my apologies.

Michael, it is quite clear to me that you are a very creative person with a passion for new discoveries in science. I do not know your levels of education in physics or the sciences in general, but I am convinced from your writings that if you were further educated(formally or self-taught) you would have the potential to go far.

Since this is Theory Developement, everyone is free to offer speculations. Even "full-blown" speculations. This is totally fine and WELCOME. After all, that's what this particular forum in PF is for.

If you haven't noticed, Russ, Nereid, myself and others have been trying to help you: Help you to validate your theory and methods of approach. We are simply trying to assist you develop your own theory under acceptable standards. Yes, expect to be challenged here! How else can proper development proceed! Most importantly, Michael, one should welcome the challenge, as do we not both learn through it?

Please listen carefully to what Russ(and others) have written to you; there is some great information and advise that will assist you now, and in the future.
Thanks for the kind words at my address, pallidin.
This is unusual occurrence at forums, unfortunately. You are one of few gentleman which I met here within two years.
Probably it is difficult to present for you, but more than implicit insults I am afraid of the silence which comes after I have proved my correctness. It was already not once. I see the reason I am not the citizen of USA or the Western Europe. For inhabitants of this forum I am the representative of the wild country who has dared to be engaged with not inherent to him business. But, fortunately, God distributes his grants without consideration of residences. Thus I want to notice, that the residence it is an easily changeable size.
BTW, my son (25 years old) is a citizen of USA.
 
  • #186
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here the spectrum of radiation of the stars and fogs in dependence from a value of gravity and magetic fields.

Also at
http://myscale.narod.ru/Table.png
That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.
 
  • #187
Originally posted by russ_watters
That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.
May be you have not understood something? This table is not the basis for my theory or predictions. On the contrary, it grows out of the properties of my scale of light frequencies.
I ask highly skilled experts in the field of astrophysics such as Nereid and pallidin to compare the results received by me with existing catalogues and to draw conclusions about conformity.
 
  • #188
Can I interpret this silence as the consent with my theory?
 
  • #189
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Can I interpret this silence as the consent with my theory?
not from me! I've had very limited internet access these last two weeks, and am only now catching up (there's a really important thread in Biology, on the 6th extinction, that will take a lot of my time to address).

To your idea: sorry to say that I don't understand your diagram.

You have 16 boxes, which are all possible combinations of 'magnetic' and 'gravity' fields, as grouped into four ranges each.

However (as Russ said), there are no numbers against either scale, so there's no way to refute anything; what are the quantatitive values for both scales/classes? OOM (order of magnitude) is sufficient for now.

Also, what do the {X,Y} notations mean? (X = gamma, X-rays; Y = microwave, radio, ..). Are these the bands in which an object with a magnetic and gravity character will emit (absorb?)?

Finally, what are the "color" icons? I can't even guess.

Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog :wink: (do you have that joke in your country?)
 
  • #190
Originally posted by Nereid

Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog :wink: (do you have that joke in your country?)
I hear this joke for the first time, but I guess it speaks about the probable infringement of my copyrights. I think, that my idea so differs from existing theories, that hardly who’ll risk to be looked as crackpot (having appropriated it). Besides I have left something in a shadow.
I am going to publish the theory and to patent an inventions on behalf of citizen USA. He is my son and only to him I’ll transfer copyrights in full. If on this way there will be insuperable problems... Well.
Then it will appear in Uzbekistan or may be in Russia, or in another country, which will show an interest to my researches.
 
  • #191
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev

I am going to publish the theory and to patent an inventions on behalf of citizen USA. He is my son and only to him I’ll transfer copyrights in full. If on this way there will be insuperable problems... Well.
Then it will appear in Uzbekistan or may be in Russia, or in another country, which will show an interest to my researches.
Michael,
You, probably, have forgotten, that it is impossible to patent discoveries in no country.
Earlier, in Russia (USSR) this right was applied, but it had been canceled at Gorbachev.
Now, it is possible to patent every poppycock. Would be money. And besides, it is necessary to prove utility and applicability of the invention for household needs (ïîõîòåé) of Homo sapiens.
Excuse me, that I use unscientific expressions, but I have all bases so to speak.
I had personal experience in successful patenting of poppycock, but it was necessary for my research work. At that time I wrote my monograph “Bounds of human intelligence”. In this monograph I have precisely shown, how and from what components are formed new hypotheses in a human brain.
As to forums, it would be useful, if concerning to all original hypotheses the official right of priority operates. It, at least, would bring moral satisfaction.
 
  • #192
As to forums, it would be useful, if concerning to all original hypotheses the official right of priority operates. It, at least, would bring moral satisfaction.
Seems this forum is the tomb for ideas. Here I was warned by participants of a forum, but not by administration, that “any claims can be proven correct by submitting them to a peer-reviewed journal only, not an internet message board.”
Hence, having placed the idea or the theory at forum, we deprive ourselves opportunities of its any further development. All of a peer-reviewed journals are warning, that they accept on consideration an original papers anywhere earlier not published.
Therefore I would like to hear answer of a forum’s administration on the following questions:
- why there is no warning of all negative consequences of accommodation of idea or the theory at this forum?
- why it is impossible to transform TD forum in independent a peer-reviewed journal or in an branch of existing one?
If I am mistaken then correct me, please.
 
  • #193
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Therefore I would like to hear answer of a forum’s administration on the following questions:
- why there is no warning of all negative consequences of accommodation of idea or the theory at this forum?
- why it is impossible to transform TD forum in independent a peer-reviewed journal or in an branch of existing one?
What negative consequences?

Your second question doesn't make any sense.

This forum is not associated with any technical journal, so nothing you do here will have any impact for or against your chances of getting your ideas published (aside from the opportunity to develop or receive feedback on your ideas).
 
Last edited:
  • #194
Theory Development is the most popular forum in Physics Forums.
Anyone peer-reviewed journal can envy.
It is not casual. Here it is possible to hear the most fantastic hypotheses and to suggest own. And, you can see the hypothesis in its initial form, without proof-readings.
In many of the suggested ideas there are particles of true.
But the technique of filtering of these particles is very imperfect.
As a matter of fact, the technique of estimation of hypotheses does not differ from what is used by magazines – if the hypothesis contradicts the official theory, it means this hypothesis is bad.
We frequently forget simple true, the new true appears at first only in one head.
And, as a rule, this new true seems fantastic for others.
While this idea will reach others, passes a lot of time. If you do not understand idea, it means a problem of your head, but not head of the author of idea.
Therefore, it is necessary to think of how to reduce the period of comprehension of non-ordinary ideas.
I don’t doubt, that the forum possesses huge advantages in comparison with magazines and, therefore, it should have more high status, than has now.
We excellently see, that the team of the forum applies many forces for improving it and we must be grateful for them.
As to association with magazines, I think, it is unnecessary.
Each of members of forum can make own site, to place in it his works after discussion in forums.
I, for example, have created own site three months ago. Now my site read more than 300 visitors among whom there are also popular scientific magazines and scientific institutes.
I am confident, that soon the life will force magazines to use the information from the forums in their publications.
But, it seems to me, we look aside from the basic idea of this topic.
 
  • #195
vlamir wrote: As a matter of fact, the technique of estimation of hypotheses does not differ from what is used by magazines – if the hypothesis contradicts the official theory, it means this hypothesis is bad.
I can't speak for anyone else (duh!), but IMHO few of the ideas posted here in T&D pass muster on the most basic of tests - consistency with well-established observations, not 'official theory'. Goodness me, in most cases it's quite difficult to get the person who proposes the new idea to even give an OOM estimate of how well their idea matches some of the iconic physics experiments of the last century! In fact, IIRC, only wisp has done his homework (am note sure about andrew grey yet).
 
<h2>1. What is particle-wave duality?</h2><p>Particle-wave duality is the concept that all particles, including light, can exhibit both particle-like and wave-like properties. This means that they can behave like discrete, localized particles in some situations, and like waves with a specific frequency and wavelength in others.</p><h2>2. How does particle-wave duality apply to light frequencies?</h2><p>Particle-wave duality applies to light frequencies because light is made up of particles called photons, which also exhibit wave-like properties. This means that light can behave as both a particle and a wave, depending on the specific experiment or observation being conducted.</p><h2>3. What is the relationship between particle-wave duality and the electromagnetic spectrum?</h2><p>The electromagnetic spectrum is a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, radio waves, and X-rays. Particle-wave duality explains that all forms of electromagnetic radiation can exhibit both particle and wave behavior, depending on the specific frequency being observed.</p><h2>4. How does the concept of particle-wave duality challenge traditional understandings of light and matter?</h2><p>Particle-wave duality challenges traditional understandings of light and matter because it suggests that particles and waves are not mutually exclusive, and that our understanding of the behavior of light and matter must be expanded to accommodate this duality. It also challenges the idea that particles are always localized and waves are always spread out, as particles can exhibit wave-like properties and vice versa.</p><h2>5. What experiments have been conducted to demonstrate particle-wave duality?</h2><p>Some of the most famous experiments that demonstrate particle-wave duality include the double-slit experiment, which showed that light can behave as both a particle and a wave, and the photoelectric effect, which demonstrated the particle-like nature of light. Other experiments, such as the diffraction of electrons, have also provided evidence for particle-wave duality in matter.</p>

1. What is particle-wave duality?

Particle-wave duality is the concept that all particles, including light, can exhibit both particle-like and wave-like properties. This means that they can behave like discrete, localized particles in some situations, and like waves with a specific frequency and wavelength in others.

2. How does particle-wave duality apply to light frequencies?

Particle-wave duality applies to light frequencies because light is made up of particles called photons, which also exhibit wave-like properties. This means that light can behave as both a particle and a wave, depending on the specific experiment or observation being conducted.

3. What is the relationship between particle-wave duality and the electromagnetic spectrum?

The electromagnetic spectrum is a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, radio waves, and X-rays. Particle-wave duality explains that all forms of electromagnetic radiation can exhibit both particle and wave behavior, depending on the specific frequency being observed.

4. How does the concept of particle-wave duality challenge traditional understandings of light and matter?

Particle-wave duality challenges traditional understandings of light and matter because it suggests that particles and waves are not mutually exclusive, and that our understanding of the behavior of light and matter must be expanded to accommodate this duality. It also challenges the idea that particles are always localized and waves are always spread out, as particles can exhibit wave-like properties and vice versa.

5. What experiments have been conducted to demonstrate particle-wave duality?

Some of the most famous experiments that demonstrate particle-wave duality include the double-slit experiment, which showed that light can behave as both a particle and a wave, and the photoelectric effect, which demonstrated the particle-like nature of light. Other experiments, such as the diffraction of electrons, have also provided evidence for particle-wave duality in matter.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
11K
Replies
78
Views
3K
  • Optics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
755
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
562
Back
Top