Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[vlamir]

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.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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.

 

[elas]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[elas]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
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.

That makes no sense - you could get 3x the mass by observing 3x the light. In any case, that's only one of the many inconsistencies in what he is describing - the wave/particle duality of light is another important error he's operating on.

so I would ask you to put that to one side and return to my request, "is Micheal[/B mathematically correct?,

You're just not getting it. Sorry, there isn't any simpler way for me to explain it to you. His math needs to reflect reality. Reality isn't bound to reflect his math. Refusal to accept that will bring you much failure in your scientific pursuits.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by vlamir
...we shall remains with reality:
Wave = Energy.

You are right, vlamir.
But, what parameters of a wave defines its energy?
It is a frequency. In fact it is an efficient amplitude.
At increasing of frequency an efficient amplitude has changing.
THESE CHANGES ARE ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE FOR MAGNETIC AND FOR GRAVITY PROPERTIES. What will be with an energy in this case?

 

[elas]

That makes no sense - you could get 3x the mass by observing 3x the light.

It is not possible to conduct an experiment where more than one photon occupies the same point on the same line of advance. But it is possible to prove by experiment that there is a limit to the number of electrons occupying the same point at the same time, could that be due to their mass?. We do not know because we need movement to measure mass.

 

[vlamir]

Michael,
Now I am at difficulty even to make the supposition concerning it.
I debate the theme " Dissociation of hydrogen " in Science Forums and I am in active correspondence with Mr. A.Kushelev concerning these wave parameters.
Perhaps, the situation becomes more clear in the near future.
Best regards.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by vlamir
Michael,
Now I am at difficulty even to make the supposition concerning it.
I debate the theme " Dissociation of hydrogen " in Science Forums and I am in active correspondence with Mr. A.Kushelev concerning these wave parameters.
Perhaps, the situation becomes more clear in the near future.
Best regards.

Okay.

4) Photons are spread rectilinearly and have no the rest mass.
5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons.
The facts 4) and 5) gives for us the basis to state, that a mass and curvature of speed (i.e. radial acceleration) are inseparably linked each with other.
The mathematical simulation of processes of radiation and absorption of light by multifrequency ring oscillators (polytrons) has allowed calculating diameter of these oscillators.

Dear vlamir. I hope, you have found out yours statements from the thread “ dipole of speed ”. I think the facts 4) and 5) are the direct proofs of my correctness.

 

[elas]

5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons.


So were does the mass added to or removed from the atom go to or come from?

 

[vlamir]

Yes Michael, of course.
But the precise calculations are necessary. I am very tired to search for the experimental facts in the literature and in Internet. I shall ask the help from A.Kushelev and S.Polyschuk.

Elas,
Mass is curvature of speed of light in atoms.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons.


So were does the mass added to or removed from the atom go to or come from?

Dear Elas.
I see a trap which contains your question.
Do you mean that the photon, not having a rest mass, cannot change a rest mass of atom at radiation or absorption? On existing view it is so.
But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent. The absorbed photon increases a frequency of a standing wave which represents a particle (atom). It is shown as effect of increase a rest mass of this particle (atom).
The radiated photon reduces a frequency of this wave and it is shown as effect of decrease a rest mass of particle (atom).

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The initial post of this thread has been edited. Some specifications explaining my point are added. Read this post once again, please.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Dear Vlamir,
As far as I know, your experiments with ring oscillators (polytrons)as well as your mathematical calculations allows to find the energy spectrums of atoms, or a set of own resonance frequencies of atomic oscillators[B/] for hydrogen and helium.
But, WHY YOU ARE HAVE ACCOUNT THESE DATA AS SUITABLE ONLY FOR ACCOMMODATION IN THE DIRECTORY?
Actually, it is a fundamental data!

 

[elas]

Just recovered from yet another crash. Glad to see debate continuing will submit reply soon
elas

 

[vlamir]

Michael,
I have fulfilled calculations not only for hydrogen and helium. At present I have calculated upper spectrums for silicon and has compared them with experimental data. But for heavier elements such data are absent in the literature.
As to usage of my method - here deadlock. I accessed in NIST and more than to 10 leading theorists in the different countries. But they have not answered to my letters.

 

[elas]

1) Do you mean that the photon, not having a rest mass, cannot change a rest mass of atom at radiation or absorption? On existing view it is so.

2) But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent.

1a) I am saying that in order to have an effect on other particles a photon must have a rest mass. You will be aware that some leading physicist agree that mass is a prerequisite of existence and therefore a photon must have mass even if it is the most insignificant of quantities. I am saying this 'insignificance' is due to the absence of a photon vacuum field.

2a) Every wave must have a wave carrier, just as every force must have a force carrier. In my opinion these carriers are one and the same thing. It is this 'force carrier' that I believe holds the key that might unite our separate ideas into a possible new theory.

Would you agree that if photon frequency 1 reflects off atom A it has a different frequency (frequency 2). Now if it reflects off atom B it has another frequency (frequency C).
But if an electron followed the same path its frequency would not necessarily change.
I explain this difference in behaviour as being due to the abscence (in the case of a photon) or the presence (in the case of an electron) of a vacuum field.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
1) Do you mean that the photon, not having a rest mass, cannot change a rest mass of atom at radiation or absorption? On existing view it is so.

2) But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent.

1a) I am saying that in order to have an effect on other particles a photon must have a rest mass. You will be aware that some leading physicist agree that mass is a prerequisite of existence and therefore a photon must have mass even if it is the most insignificant of quantities. I am saying this 'insignificance' is due to the absence of a photon vacuum field.

2a) Every wave must have a wave carrier, just as every force must have a force carrier. In my opinion these carriers are one and the same thing. It is this 'force carrier' that I believe holds the key that might unite our separate ideas into a possible new theory.

Would you agree that if photon frequency 1 reflects off atom A it has a different frequency (frequency 2). Now if it reflects off atom B it has another frequency (frequency C).
But if an electron followed the same path its frequency would not necessarily change.
I explain this difference in behaviour as being due to the abscence (in the case of a photon) or the presence (in the case of an electron) of a vacuum field.

1-1a)I am saying that the photon is in balancing near zero value of mass and magnetic property. Achievement of absolute zero value it is infinite process. Therefore it is possible to say quite definitely, that the photon has mass and magnetic properties close, but not equal to zero.
2-2a) About a carrying wave was told in an initial post (edited) of this thread.
Read it once again, please.
As the unit of measurement of a frequency is 1/sec and the unit of measurement of time is sec, that a frequency and time are the opposite essences.
Therefore the laws concerning these two essences are identical (except a sign).
I have invented “ The law of conservation of time circle”

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1054

It means preservation of the frequency inherent at object too.
For this reason atom A radiates photons of frequency 1, and atom B radiates photons of frequency 2. They are not dependent on frequency of the absorbed photon.
My point about concept "field" can be seen in mine topic “Does field exist?”
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

 

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Indeed. No matter what light frequency you look at, it displays the same particle/wave duality.

I'd go one step further. Since net is moving against particles, the amount of motion is always mc in the same way as the resting mass is m.

All particles, no matter how fast they move, has the amount of motion mc and thereby the inner amount of motion is m(c^2-v^2)^0,5. This funktion is hard to integrate. What is the integrale of this function?

 

[QuantumNet]

I have replied to your mail, McQueen

I'll move this theory of the atom to The Atom, still in the theory development forum

 

[elas]

Michael

It would help me to understand your theory better if you would give your explanation as to the origin of the wave structure. (i.e. what brings the wave into existence?

regards
elas

 

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by elas
Michael

what brings the wave into existence?

regards
elas

What makes the string vibrate?

A loss of mass.

 

[elas]

But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent.

What makes the string vibrate?
A loss of mass.

If you are using only one parameter, there is no mass, hence my question.
For a loss of mass to occur, the origin of mass must be accounted for. On my site I put forward a proposal for the origin of both mass and wave and show how the wave structure is related to the observed universe and the observed mass is related to vacuum force.
The aim of my question was to obtain an understanding of the origin of the waves in Micheal's and Vlamir's theories so that I could make some comparison.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
Michael

It would help me to understand your theory better if you would give your explanation as to the origin of the wave structure. (i.e. what brings the wave into existence?

regards
elas

The carrier of one wave can be the other wave ONLY. Thus, frequency of a carrying wave should be at least in 2 times more, then a frequency of a wave which it carries (a theorem of Kotelnikov). Digital video and audio is based on this principle of recording. How many levels of “ the wave carries other wave ” exists, I do not know. It is possible to do only assumptions, how many such levels exist.

 

[elas]

The carrier of one wave can be the other wave ONLY. Thus, frequency of a carrying wave should be at least in 2 times more, then a frequency of a wave which it carries (a theorem of Kotelnikov).

This is close to the root of my question. Without knowing anything about Kotelnikov and his work, I showed that each vacuum half-wave creates two waves in the force carrier due to the relationship between the mass and elasticity within the field (because the mass/density and elasticity decrease and increase along the radius). Note that I use The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment to relate my work to experimental observations.

You seem to be implying that a single (original) wave existed without a wave carrier and I cannot understand how it (the wave) can do so. Surely in order for any wave to exist there must be a substance in which to create the wave. By that I mean you cannot have a wave made of nothing operating in a field of nothing. Can you please clarify this point.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

You seem to be implying that a single (original) wave existed without a wave carrier and I cannot understand how it (the wave) can do so. Surely in order for any wave to exist there must be a substance in which to create the wave. By that I mean you cannot have a wave made of nothing operating in a field of nothing. Can you please clarify this point.

The carrying (original) wave exists in the fine structure (vacuum) and it is a fluctuation of this substance. What this layer is “made” of, as well as, how many sublayers exist, we do not know. Probably, it will not be accessible to us never. Therefore we can develop more or less “working” model of this substance only.

 

[elas]

Micheal

"The carrying (original) wave exists in the fine structure (vacuum) and it is a fluctuation of this substance . What this layer is “made” of, as well as, how many sublayers exist, we do not know".

So is this not the same as saying that the vacuum wave is carried on the vacuum force carrier. Surely we are using different words to describe very similar concepts. The only difference that I can find is that my concept does not have sub-layers in the same manner as yours but, in a manner that accounts for the existence of the other forces. This is shown in graph form on my web page.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

So is this not the same as saying that the vacuum wave is carried on the vacuum force carrier. Surely we are using different words to describe very similar concepts. The only difference that I can find is that my concept does not have sub-layers in the same manner as yours but, in a manner that accounts for the existence of the other forces. This is shown in graph form on my web page.

Dear elas ,
I am glad, that our representations about the fine structure are coincides in something. To be sure, I need to know your theory. Bring a link of your web page, please.
Preliminarily.
The source of EM fluctuations can be:
1) a rotating magnetic dipole;
2) the magnetic dipole in which the poles can be switched with some frequency.
What you are preferring (as the source of EM wave)?

 

[elas]

Micheal

My site address is
http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

At present only a small piece on the origin of the electromagnetic wave is on site. This is partly due to the current revision after a program crash and partly due to my lack of traing in mathematics.
Deispite these shortcomings I think the links I make between the wave structures (vacuum and electromagnetism) of TFQHE and the wave structures of cosmic bodies are original and worthy of proffessional comment.

Have just gone back to my site to find that the cosmic body wave page has not yet been reloaded. Will do this within the next week and let you know when it is reloaded.
regards
elas