Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Our discussion can be endless. I see a simple exit at this situation.
Just repeat the experiment suggested by me above.

 

[Nereid]

A second opinion

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Our discussion can be endless. I see a simple exit at this situation.
Just repeat the experiment suggested by me above.

Yes, that would be one way to exit the discussion.

Another would be for you to write up the experiment, and have it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

Another would be for you to write up the experiment, and have it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.

Advise please how it can be made.
http://light51.narod.ru/ligtscale.png

 

[vlamir]

Michael,
I have completed research of the moments (electrical, magnetic and mechanical) and has received unexpected outcome, which allows expressing the gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration.
M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36}
D – diameter of charge
Maybe it will help you to find a base point on frequency scale.
Regards,
Vlamir

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
Yes, that would be one way to exit the discussion.

Another would be for you to write up the experiment, and have it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.

Nereid,
You are very naive. Most arrogant the pseudo-scientific persons work just in peer-reviewed physics journals.
In past year I dispatched my papers into some scientific magazines in Russia, Europe and US. Big paper I dispatched into American Journal of Mathematical Physics. My paper fell into hands to the scientific editor, which carries a loud surname Newton (but not Isaac). He answered, that my work is philosophical, but not physical and mathematical. In this my paper there are more 100 formulas. This is frank arrogance.
From European magazines I had received refusals with more disguised arrogance; from the Russian magazines - impudent bureaucratic formal reply

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats a false analogy because a new invention doesn't require that all related previous inventions not work.

Your hypothesis directly contradicts the known laws of physics and the experimental evidence that supports it. These laws have served us well this past century. They work. If what you are doing isn't arrogance, then its ignorance. But I've said that before - you don't understand enough of what we DO know about physics to start to put together your own extending theory, much less a contradictory one. Format doesn't matter, the attachment simply isn't there.

I am compelled to repeat once again:
MY IDEA DOES NOT CONTRADICT EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
It differs from an existing EXPLANATION of results of these experiments, i.e. the THEORY. Well, but it is not my problem.
It is possible to bring the set of examples when the new theory replaced old one.
I do not see any tragedy here.
Insignificant ideas led to the slow accumulation of knowledge. Ingenious ideas led to the re-comprehension of this knowledge. It lifts up the evolution of knowledge on a new step of development. I don’t doubt, each participant of this forum have claims for a role of genius. This claim in the some cases can be proved. And I see a role of mentors in the careful research of these bases.
But you even hypothetically cannot assume such situation.
You are not right, Russ.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I am compelled to repeat once again:
MY IDEA DOES NOT CONTRADICT EXPERIMENTAL DATA.

It really doesn't matter how may times you repeat it - it doesn't get any less false.

That takes us back to the beginning of the thread where a number of people told you that until you know more about accepted physics, you can't know whether or not it contradicts experimental data or existing theories. Its the same fallacy tha vlamir is falling victim to - in science, ignorance of data/theories does not relieve you of the responsibility to account for them.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by vlamir
Michael,
I have completed research of the moments (electrical, magnetic and mechanical) and has received unexpected outcome, which allows expressing the gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration.
M_e=\frac{g_c}{piD}=\frac{2c^2{}}{piD^2{}}=1.463681837\times\10^{36}
D – diameter of charge
Maybe it will help you to find a base point on frequency scale.
Regards,
Vlamir

Thank you, VLAMIR, here even two such the points.

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.

 

[vlamir]

Well, Michael,
Let's define more exactly the scales.
I appeal for you to read three of my last works concerning moments of inertia, magnetism and electricity, and to compare of the graphics.
Yesterday I have located on my site http://vlamir.nsk.ru/index.htm all these three files:
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/electricity_e.pdf
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/magnetism_e.pdf
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/inertia_e.pdf

 

[Nereid]

Formula? specific predictions?

Michael,

I've just re-read this entire thread, looking for some specific formula which describes the effect on EM radiation (gammas to radio) of gravity and the magnetic field, according to your idea. I didn't find any; are they publicly available elsewhere?

I also looked for a description of what the result of your proposed red and blue laser beams through a strong magnetic field would be. I didn't find any; are these results posted elsewhere perhaps?

I did see that you had said the following:
1) "MY CONCLUSIONS DO NOT CONTRADICT ANY OBSERVATION"

2) "MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT"

3) "EM FORCE IS INVERSELY [proportional] TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT"

Let's look at just two sets of observations.

a) gravitational lensing. The observation is that EM radiation is deflected ('bent') from a straight line as it passes near a large mass. The degree of bending is independent of the frequency of the EM radiation, and GR accounts for this effect to at least 1 part in 10⁴.
These observations are a direct contradition to 2) above (unless I have misunderstood what your idea is). Google on 'gravitational lensing' and you'll get plenty of links to papers reporting observations, and analyses, of this phenomenon.

b) magnetars. These are neutron stars with very strong magnetic fields, far stronger than we can create on Earth. They have been observed across the EM spectrum, and AFAIK, no unexplained, frequency-dependent results have been found. Again, you are welcome to read the original research papers reporting the results - you may even get access to much of the data on which the results are based - to check this for yourself.
These observations are a direct contradiction to 3) above.

Michael, perhaps I have misunderstood your proposed relationship between the gravity, magnetic field, and photons. If so, would you be so kind as to post a quantatitive formula detailing these relationships? Please also use your formulae to calculate what the deflections of radio waves (please specify a frequency) and light (also specify a frequency) past the Sun's disc will be (please specify the mass and magnetic field strength you use for these predictions, as well as the dependence of the deflection on the angular distance of the line of sight from the Sun's photosphere).

With these formulae and predictions, we will all be able to see clearly how well your idea matches observation.

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by russ_watters
... Its the same fallacy tha vlamir is falling victim to - in science, ignorance of data/theories does not relieve you of the responsibility to account for them.

Formula for gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration
M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36} \frac{1}{s^2}
Where
D_s=197.714\times 10^{-12} m – the static diameter of hydrogen radial polytron (or approximate diameter of electron);
g_c=\frac{2c^2}{D_s} – the centripetal acceleration of ergoline in polytron (or the curvature of speed of light);
expresses the current state of real world.

The Earth is rotate around own axis and around of the Sun.
The solar system is rotate around of center of our Galaxy.
Our Galaxy is rotate around of center of some other Supergalaxy, etc.
Some of these systems can be rotating with accelerating; others can be rotating with slowing. The total of rotary accelerations influences the value of gravitation and mass in each point of space and time.
Besides, all these systems vibrate.
Atoms consist of vibrant energy rings - from polytrons.
The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. These forces are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
I guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration. In dinosaur's times the Earth year and the Earth day were shorter.
The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe there is a language barrier here or maybe I'm just out of my depth, but I don't see the word "polytron" in any dictionary.

 

[Rader]

polyton

Originally posted by russ_watters
Maybe there is a language barrier here or maybe I'm just out of my depth, but I don't see the word "polytron" in any dictionary.

I found this Russ.
http://www.matrix.com.ru/pdf/pdf_en/gr-stavitski_en.pdf
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
...
With these formulae and predictions, we will all be able to see clearly how well your idea matches observation.

Let's consider well-known relations:
E=mc^2
and
E=h \nu\
whence
mc^2=h \nu\
or
m=k\nu\
here k= h/c^2
accepting
\nu\ = f_w – f_p
where
f_w - frequency of wave
f_p- frequency of photon
for f_w > f_p
we have positive value of mass.
for f_w < f_p
we have negative (mirror) value.
It is the CHARGE.
A CHARGE THIS MIRROR REFLECTION OF MASS CONCERNING FREQUENCY OF THE PHOTON.
I have made my prediction earlier. RED SHIFT is a result of shifting a red beam in the magnetic field of a star, but not a result of acceleration. The UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXPAND, BUT is IN the CONDITION of DYNAMIC BALANCE.

 

[russ_watters]

The part where you lose me is the frequency of a photon being different from the frequency of a wave. A photon is a wave, ie a single photon of any form of em radiation has one and only one frequency. In fact, a photon is DEFINED according to its frequency (ie, photons of one frequency are called "light," while photons of another are called "gamma rays").

 

[Nereid]

Michael's idea strongly conflicts with experimental results

Michael wrote: I have made my prediction earlier. RED SHIFT is a result of shifting a red beam in the magnetic field of a star, but not a result of acceleration

As you may know, the gravitational redshift which GR predicts has been verified through many experiments. At least two of these experiments have results which conflict strongly with your idea.

The experiments are:
1) the 1960-1965 Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, in which "two identical clocks (gamma-ray emitting iron nuclei) at different heights were intercompared."
2) a 1976 gravitational redshift experiment using a Hydrogen maser clock launched on a Scout rocket to an altitude of 10,000 km and compared with an identical clock on the ground.
(Source: arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9504017)

Both experiments measured a gravitational redshift as predicted by GR, to 1% (Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments) and 0.02% (H maser experiment).

How does this conflict with your idea?

According to your idea, the gravitational redshift is due to the Earth's magetic field, and is frequency dependent (linear relationship). Yet these two experiments involve photons whose frequencies differ by ~8 orders of magnitude, but no frequency dependence is seen.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your idea. Would you like to account for the results of the two experiments cited above? By this I mean: show that the experiments' results are consistent with your idea, by using actual data on the Earth's mass, photon frequencies, the Earth's magnetic field, and so on. You can determine the redshift measured in each experiment by applying GR equations.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The part where you lose me is the frequency of a photon being different from the frequency of a wave. A photon is a wave, ie a single photon of any form of em radiation has one and only one frequency. In fact, a photon is DEFINED according to its frequency (ie, photons of one frequency are called "light," while photons of another are called "gamma rays").

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.
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 gaps between objects and is shown as GRAVITATY and MAGNETIC FORCES.
The second one defines internal properties of objects and is shown as MASS (INERTIA) AND the CHARGE.
Gamma it is a big package of photons. It has already the distinct property of mass. It is not one photon.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
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.

That may be how radio broadcasts work, but that's not the way em radiation itself is observed to work. It is not confirmed by experimental data.

 

[Nereid]

specific, quantitative predictions?

Originally posted by vlamir
Formula for gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration
M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36} \frac{1}{s^2}
Where
D_s=197.714\times 10^{-12} m – the static diameter of hydrogen radial polytron (or approximate diameter of electron);
g_c=\frac{2c^2}{D_s} – the centripetal acceleration of ergoline in polytron (or the curvature of speed of light);
expresses the current state of real world.

The Earth is rotate around own axis and around of the Sun.
The solar system is rotate around of center of our Galaxy.
Our Galaxy is rotate around of center of some other Supergalaxy, etc.
Some of these systems can be rotating with accelerating; others can be rotating with slowing. The total of rotary accelerations influences the value of gravitation and mass in each point of space and time.
Besides, all these systems vibrate.
Atoms consist of vibrant energy rings - from polytrons.
The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. These forces are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
I guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration. In dinosaur's times the Earth year and the Earth day were shorter.
The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form.

Would you care to make some specific, quantitative predictions from your idea? For example:
-> the time rate-of-change of G, \alpha, c, or h
-> the value of the local Hubble constant
-> the rest mass of neutrino(s) - any kind

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by vlamir

The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. These forces are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
I guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration. In dinosaur's times the Earth year and the Earth day were shorter.
The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form.

Are you equating this to a model how evolution works?

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
Would you care to make some specific, quantitative predictions from your idea? For example:
-> the time rate-of-change of G, \alpha, c, or h
-> the value of the local Hubble constant
-> the rest mass of neutrino(s) - any kind

Thanks for good questions, Nereid.
As I spoke above, this formula became for me unexpectedness.
In the work
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/dipole of speed_e.pdf
this problem was partially solved. I wanted to prolong the work in some months, but absolutely unexpected, the solution has come earlier. The answers to some of your questions you can find in this paper.
Now I am forced to change my plans.
I want to go in the forum "Astronomy and Cosmology" and to discuss some problems.
In particular, I am interested with the "magnetic" history of the Earth.
The Earth is the huge gyroscope, which is charged by negative electricity. The gyration of electric charge generates some part of magnetic field of the Earth.
In order to test quantitatively this supposition it is necessary go to the "magnetic" history of the Earth. During the existence the Earth, her magnetic poles had turned over some times. Not so large energy is necessary for turn over of poles of the Earth. In any case, it is significant smaller than it is necessary for rotational displacement of our Earth gyroscope on 180 degrees. But if to assume, that at rotation of the solar system around of galactic center, we moving on an elliptic orbit, then the pattern becomes more - less actual.
At moving of celestial body on an elliptic orbit the angular acceleration of the body changes the sign four times for each turnover. The period of revolution of the solar system around of center of our Galaxy is approximately equal of 240 millions years. Therefore, the period of revolution of the magnetic field of the Earth should be equal of 60 millions years.
As to neutrino, I could offer you to think of electrons and positrons, which have lost a charge. The polytronic model of electric charge allows to have a fractional charge, down to its complete losses.
But I would not like to hurry up with solution of this problem, as the neutrino is insufficiently known particle.
Regards.
Vlamir

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Rader
Are you equating this to a model how evolution works?

Excuse me, please, but I didn't understand your question.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

Perhaps I have misunderstood your idea. Would you like to account for the results of the two experiments cited above?

Mirror symmetry of a mass - magnet properties does not reject an action of gravity which is BACKGROUND for ALL SCALE and works PRECISELY as predicted by GR and confirmed by all executed experiments. The scale defines on frequencies are lower of visible light, on a background of gravity the addition magnetic properties are shown. They have strong frequency dependence already.
Also, the scale shows the second level of quantization which concerns to internal properties of objects.
Seems, I need to make two scales instead of one. Perhaps, association of all properties to one scale is the reason of misunderstanding of my idea. If it is so, then my apologies. I’ll soon introduce a new variant of a scale.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I offer the simple experiment which will answer all questions. It can be executed, using a powerful magnet similar the LHC magnet, here, on the Earth. Except of a magnet, two lasers : blue and red are necessary. Their beams are parallel and directed at one target. They pass between poles of a magnet. The distances between red and blue points on a target and their coordinates on a target at the switched OFF magnet is measured. The same is carried out at the magnet switched ON. Certainly, lasers should be closer to a magnet, and the target is far as it possible.
Expected result: the red beam, as against a blue beam, will be deflected by a magnetic field.

and:

Mirror symmetry of a mass - magnet properties does not reject an action of gravity which is BACKGROUND for ALL SCALE and works PRECISELY as predicted by GR and confirmed by all executed experiments.

Michael, could I ask that you state very clearly please: do the Cassini (and many other) observations of gravitational redshift, lensing, Sharipo time delay, etc due to the Sun's mass provide direct contradictions of your ideas or not?

On the one hand you say your ideas are consistent with GR; on the other you claim that the Cassini results are due to the Sun's magnetic field, not its mass. Please clarify.

WRT your blue and red lasers in a magnetic field, I'm still looking forward to your predictions as to the size of the differential bending. I'm looking forward even more to your explanation of how any measurable bending - even if the magnets were LHC ones - would be consistent with magnetar observations. FYI, the magnetic fields of magnetars are believed to be ~a billion times stronger than an LHC magnet's.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
FYI, the magnetic fields of magnetars are believed to be ~a billion times stronger than an LHC magnet's.

What's a magnetar?

 

[Nereid]

a star with a really, really strong magnetic field!

Originally posted by russ_watters
What's a magnetar?

"What do you call a neutron star with a super-strong magnetic field? You guessed it ... a Magnetar. Imagine a star with more mass than the sun, the density of a neutron, and a magnetic field about a thousand trillion (a one followed by 15 zeroes) times stronger than Earth's."

Here's a good place to start:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000122.html

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by vlamir
Excuse me, please, but I didn't understand your question.

The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form

Are you equating this to a model how evolution works?

Then you are saying that the Polytronic Model could explain the evolution of the "magnetic" history of the Earth, during its existence, the change in her magnetic poles, in realtion to the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments in polytrons.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
"What do you call a neutron star with a super-strong magnetic field? You guessed it ... a Magnetar. "

Cool. Guess I could have googled it myself...

Anyway followup: is rotation what makes a neutron star a magnetar? If so, are all fast spinning pulsars magnetars?

 

[vlamir]

Rader,
Yes, I speak that Polytronic Model can explain not only structure of atoms, but it can help better to understand the evolution of Universe. For this purpose it is necessary again to analyze the available experimental data and to fulfil new calculations.
For those some days, which have passed from the moment of birth of the formula, I had not time to make it. Maybe, I shall do it in one year. You see, I have not any assistants.

 

[Nereid]

CMB temperature and an H transition

Originally posted by vlamir
Thanks for good questions, Nereid.
As I spoke above, this formula became for me unexpectedness.
In the work
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/dipole of speed_e.pdf
this problem was partially solved. I wanted to prolong the work in some months, but absolutely unexpected, the solution has come earlier. The answers to some of your questions you can find in this paper.
Now I am forced to change my plans.
I want to go in the forum "Astronomy and Cosmology" and to discuss some problems.
In particular, I am interested with the "magnetic" history of the Earth.
The Earth is the huge gyroscope, which is charged by negative electricity. The gyration of electric charge generates some part of magnetic field of the Earth.
In order to test quantitatively this supposition it is necessary go to the "magnetic" history of the Earth. During the existence the Earth, her magnetic poles had turned over some times. Not so large energy is necessary for turn over of poles of the Earth. In any case, it is significant smaller than it is necessary for rotational displacement of our Earth gyroscope on 180 degrees. But if to assume, that at rotation of the solar system around of galactic center, we moving on an elliptic orbit, then the pattern becomes more - less actual.
At moving of celestial body on an elliptic orbit the angular acceleration of the body changes the sign four times for each turnover. The period of revolution of the solar system around of center of our Galaxy is approximately equal of 240 millions years. Therefore, the period of revolution of the magnetic field of the Earth should be equal of 60 millions years.
As to neutrino, I could offer you to think of electrons and positrons, which have lost a charge. The polytronic model of electric charge allows to have a fractional charge, down to its complete losses.
But I would not like to hurry up with solution of this problem, as the neutrino is insufficiently known particle.
Regards.
Vlamir

I look forward to your specific, quantitative predictions, and demonstrations that they match observations.

In your paper I note your comment that the current CMB temperature corresponds to the 118<->117 H Rydberg transition. It's not clear to me whether you claim some significance for this, other than pure coincidence. If you do see some deep significance, I'd be interested to see how you explain observations which show that the temperature of the CMB was higher in the past, just as predicted by the recent cosmological models.

 

[Nereid]

neutron star = magnetar? sometimes only

Originally posted by russ_watters
Cool. Guess I could have googled it myself...

Anyway followup: is rotation what makes a neutron star a magnetar? If so, are all fast spinning pulsars magnetars?

More googling would have found you this (from Wikipedia):
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

From this site: "If the neutron star is initially rotating as fast as the period of convection, about ten milliseconds, then the convection currents are able to operate globally and transfer a significant amount of their kinetic energy into magnetic field strength. In slower-rotating neutron stars, the convection currents only form in local regions."

 

[vlamir]

Nereid,
I have tested my formulas for spectrums of the high - ionized atoms with data:
NIST Atomic Spectra Database and Kelly Atomic Line Database.
Frequency CMB in the scale of polytronic radiation, I have found then, when try to understand, whether the Universe can cool down up to temperature of absolute zero.
So, the frequency CMB is the subproduct of common legitimacy.
The Universe utilizes the binary mathematics. In this mathematics the numbers 2^{n} play important and, at the same time, mysterious role.
One of my suppositions consists in, that after reaching the frequency order m=2^{8}, the cooling of the Universe should stop.
After that the compression will begin.

 

[Nereid]

vladmir wrote: Frequency CMB in the scale of polytronic radiation, I have found then, when try to understand, whether the Universe can cool down up to temperature of absolute zero.
So, the frequency CMB is the subproduct of common legitimacy.
The Universe utilizes the binary mathematics. In this mathematics the numbers LaTeX graphic is being generated. Reload this page in a moment. play important and, at the same time, mysterious role.
One of my suppositions consists in, that after reaching the frequency order LaTeX graphic is being generated. Reload this page in a moment., the cooling of the Universe should stop.

I do not understand what you have written here.

Can you make a prediction of the CMB temperature, from the time of last scattering till today? If so, have you made such a calculation? If so, please publish it so we can see how well it matches observations.

 

[vlamir]

Nereid,
I wrote 2^n it is the binary mathematics of the Universe.
One of my suppositions consists in, that after reaching the frequency order m=2^8, the cooling of the Universe should stop.
After that the compression will begin.
It is only supposition.
That is why I consider, that the theme Particle-wave duality on a scale of light frequencies by Michael is very actual.
I think, that the solution of this task will help to find the answer for my supposition.

 

[Rader]

magnetic moment

Vladmir on your site you have stated that;

In the electromagnetic wave the electrical and magnetic component of the field are inseparably linked with each other. The same link exists and in the ring wave of radial polytron.

By analogy with the magnetic and electrical moments, we have selected for the mechanical moment of polytron such structure, in order the product of the mechanical moments of two polytrons was equal to gravitational force of interaction between them.

The force of gravitational interaction between two radial polytrons is equal to product of their mechanical moments.

Question; The magnetic and electrical moments being linked as one and the same would occur at the same moment but the mechcanical angular moment would lag behind in a small unit of plank time?

 

[vlamir]

Dear Rader,
Your thought is new and interesting for me. But I for a while yet was not engaged by link between the different moments. If you will make the mathematics, I with pleasure shall place your work in the site Polytronic Physics under your name.

Now I would like to return to the frequency scale.
At the mathematical analysis of the polytronic equations I have confronted with not clear outcome. On the graphics in the attached file on the abscissa axis the scale of own frequencies of hydrogen polytrons in units of the frequency order is postponed. On the axis of ordinates the values of stability of the resonance process, reduced to unit are given.
The left dashed line (m=4) corresponds to high-frequency boundary of radiation of free neutral atomic hydrogen. The right dashed line (m=236) corresponds to radiation of CMB. At m=16, hydrogen atom radiates the Compton's wave. But, in my opinion, the Compton effect has more composite mechanism, than it is described in the textbooks of physics. At m=2, hydrogen atom can emit the first particle – electron.

At first I have decided, that the peaks on the graphics come up owing to abnormality of my equations. But the careful check has shown, that the structure of the equations cannot yield such big errors. Then I have decided to test the equations at a different integration step. But also at change of an integration step the peaks on the graphics remain, but their height varies. One peaks become lower, at the same time other peaks become higher.
The last supposition, which I cannot test, is, that a reason of appearance of peaks is the software of the computer.
The mathematical processor of the computer utilizes the binary system.
The polytronic equations also are constructed under the binary scheme.
But, it is possible, that further mathematical operations the computer fulfils with the help of mathematical rows.
If it so, then mathematical rows (constructed on the module e^x) are unsuitable for the description of quantum processes.
If it not so, then is necessary much carefully search for a reason in the nature of resonance processes.
Now wavelength of Cosmic Background Radiation is equal 7.4 cm. If my supposition will appear valid, then at the wavelength 9.4 cm the extension of the Universe meets the obstacle of peak of instability.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/zigzags.gif

 

[Nereid]

vlamir wrote: Now wavelength of Cosmic Background Radiation is equal 7.4 cm.

Er, no.

The CMB spectrum is quite different from the line spectrum of excited H atoms; the former is blackbody (with deviations), the latter is a set of discrete wavelengths.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by vlamir
Dear Rader,
Your thought is new and interesting for me. But I for a while yet was not engaged by link between the different moments. If you will make the mathematics, I with pleasure shall place your work in the site Polytronic Physics under your name.

Now I would like to return to the frequency scale.
At the mathematical analysis of the polytronic equations I have confronted with not clear outcome. On the graphics in the attached file on the abscissa axis the scale of own frequencies of hydrogen polytrons in units of the frequency order is postponed. On the axis of ordinates the values of stability of the resonance process, reduced to unit are given.
The left dashed line (m=4) corresponds to high-frequency boundary of radiation of free neutral atomic hydrogen. The right dashed line (m=236) corresponds to radiation of CMB. At m=16, hydrogen atom radiates the Compton's wave. But, in my opinion, the Compton effect has more composite mechanism, than it is described in the textbooks of physics. At m=2, hydrogen atom can emit the first particle – electron.

At first I have decided, that the peaks on the graphics come up owing to abnormality of my equations. But the careful check has shown, that the structure of the equations cannot yield such big errors. Then I have decided to test the equations at a different integration step. But also at change of an integration step the peaks on the graphics remain, but their height varies. One peaks become lower, at the same time other peaks become higher.
The last supposition, which I cannot test, is, that a reason of appearance of peaks is the software of the computer.
The mathematical processor of the computer utilizes the binary system.
The polytronic equations also are constructed under the binary scheme.
But, it is possible, that further mathematical operations the computer fulfils with the help of mathematical rows.
If it so, then mathematical rows (constructed on the module e^x) are unsuitable for the description of quantum processes.
If it not so, then is necessary much carefully search for a reason in the nature of resonance processes.
Now wavelength of Cosmic Background Radiation is equal 7.4 cm. If my supposition will appear valid, then at the wavelength 9.4 cm the extension of the Universe meets the obstacle of peak of instability.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/zigzags.gif

Vladmir i am not qualified to do this, if i was, the mathematics would be posted.

You have stated that Polytronic Model can explain not only structure of atoms, but it can help better to understand the evolution of Universe. For this purpose it is necessary again to analyze the available experimental data and to fulfil new calculations.

The thought behind my question was the realtionship between the evolution of Universe and the evolution of consciousness.
http://users.erols.com/wcri/CONSCIOUSNESS.html
The collapse of the wave function in the human mind, relating to the electrical and magnetic moment and the mechanical moment relating to physicl existence. You state in your Polytronic Model that there is a change over time of polytronic interaction. Paper on the Compton's wave http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Experiments/ComptEff.html
DOCBUGAN6Y

 

[vlamir]

Nereid, I know it.
The CBR spectrum should incorporate lines of hydrogen (~80 % of integral intensity), lines of helium (~20 %) and lines of the rest elements (~1 %). In different areas of the Universe the spectrum has variations, both in intensity, and in time. It is logically.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
Nereid, I know it.
The CBR spectrum should incorporate lines of hydrogen (~80 % of integral intensity), lines of helium (~20 %) and lines of the rest elements (~1 %). In different areas of the Universe the spectrum has variations, both in intensity, and in time. It is logically.

Can you accurately account for the observed CMB using your idea, or not?

 

[vlamir]

Thanks for information, Rader.
Ricardo L. Carezani utilizes the generally accepted concept of a moment of momentum.
Nevertheless, his conclusion is qualitatively valid.
I consider, that elastic collision between a quantum and electron does not exist, but there is a multistage process - atom swallows a quantum, then energy of a quantum is reallocated between polytrons and, then the atom radiates superfluous energy in the form of "the scattered photon".

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
Can you accurately account for the observed CMB using your idea, or not?

I have not detailed experimental data of CBR.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
I have not detailed experimental data of CBR.

For your initial purposes, I expect that the COBE results would be adequate.

At the 0th order:
-> isotropic blackbody of temperature 2.725 (+/- 0.002) K

At the next level:
-> a dipole of temperature 3.358 (+/- 0.023) mK superimposed on the isotropic 0th order CMB, in the direction (l, b) = (264.31^o +/- 0.16, +48.05^o +/- 0.09)

In more detail:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_prod_table.cfm

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
For your initial purposes, I expect that the COBE results would be adequate.

At the 0th order:
-> isotropic blackbody of temperature 2.725 (+/- 0.002) K

At the next level:
-> a dipole of temperature 3.358 (+/- 0.023) mK superimposed on the isotropic 0th order CMB, in the direction (l, b) = (264.31^o +/- 0.16, +48.05^o +/- 0.09)

In more detail:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_prod_table.cfm

Thank Nereid. But, unfortunately, I cannot load in the computer such huge information NASA.
And second. The temperature characterizes an integral radiation flow. In order to "decode" composition of the flow, it is necessary to know lengths of some waves near maximum of intensity.
According to my preliminary calculations, the maximum CMB should be shaped of the following waves:
on hydrogen scale – 7.21cm, 7.39cm and 7.59cm;
on first helium scale – 7.27cm, 7.39cm and 7.51cm;
on second helium scale – 7.29cm, 7,45cm and 7.61cm.
The hydrogen scale is "tied" to Compton wave.

 

[Nereid]

blackbody radiation

Originally posted by vlamir
Thank Nereid. But, unfortunately, I cannot load in the computer such huge information NASA.
And second. The temperature characterizes an integral radiation flow. In order to "decode" composition of the flow, it is necessary to know lengths of some waves near maximum of intensity.
According to my preliminary calculations, the maximum CMB should be shaped of the following waves:
on hydrogen scale – 7.21cm, 7.39cm and 7.59cm;
on first helium scale – 7.27cm, 7.39cm and 7.51cm;
on second helium scale – 7.29cm, 7,45cm and 7.61cm.
The hydrogen scale is "tied" to Compton wave.

You may wish to plot the intensity of 2.725 K blackbody radiation against wavelength; you will find that the peak is different from what your idea predicts, by a quite considerable factor. I conclude that, unless your preliminary calculations are considerably in error, there is no match between your idea and the CMB observations.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Addition to the basic scale here.
BTW, on the basis of properties of “the scale of light frequencies” I can make one more prediction:
Observable color of radiation of a star depends of its magnetic property. It varies from blue at stars with a strong magnetic field (green-blue at a neutron star) up to yellow - red at stars with a weak magnetic field (dwarfs).

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Addition to the basic scale here.
BTW, on the basis of properties of “the scale of light frequencies” I can make one more prediction:
Observable color of radiation of a star depends of its magnetic property. It varies from blue at stars with a strong magnetic field (green-blue at a neutron star) up to yellow - red at stars with a weak magnetic field (dwarfs).

Please be a bit more specific - what do you mean by 'observable color of radiation of a star'?

What are the magnetic field strengths of stars of differernt clors?

 

[vlamir]

Nereid,
Blackbodies do not exist in the nature. The law of radiation by Kirchhoff (1859) is correct only for radiation inside closed concavity. The Universe is not closed concavity.
The law of radiation by Planck is constructed on the module e^x and also describes the equilibrium radiation
u_{\nu ,T} =\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^{3}e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}}
The module e^x fulfils the role of correction factor for the cubic function of frequency. In my equations there is no correction factor, therefore radiant intensity is proportional to the square-law function of frequency. It corresponds to the extending Universe better, than steady-state radiation of blackbody.
Why you obstinately pull us in XIX century and do not wish to think of dynamics?
I research spectrums to understand a structure of atoms, but not to fit data under aged paradigms. The antennas catch waves CMB 7-7.5cm.
Have you other data?

 

[Nereid]

Please check out the COBE and WMAP results

Originally posted by vlamir
Nereid,
Blackbodies do not exist in the nature. The law of radiation by Kirchhoff (1859) is correct only for radiation inside closed concavity. The Universe is not closed concavity.
The law of radiation by Planck is constructed on the module e^x and also describes the equilibrium radiation
u_{\nu ,T} =\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^{3}e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}}
The module e^x fulfils the role of correction factor for the cubic function of frequency. In my equations there is no correction factor, therefore radiant intensity is proportional to the square-law function of frequency. It corresponds to the extending Universe better, than steady-state radiation of blackbody.
Why you obstinately pull us in XIX century and do not wish to think of dynamics?
I research spectrums to understand a structure of atoms, but not to fit data under aged paradigms. The antennas catch waves CMB 7-7.5cm.
Have you other data?

There's a stunning chart in one of the pages presenting the COBE results; it plots the observational data on the intensity-wavelength graph for a 2.725 K blackbody (there's also a formal analysis of the statistical quality of the match, elsewhere in the site).
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.cfm

You might also like to read more about the three COBE instruments, particularly the wavelengths they observed.
FIRAS: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/about_firas.cfm
DIBRE: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dirbe_overview.cfm
DMR:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_overview.cfm

 

[vlamir]

Many thanks for information, Nereid,
We had glorious talk about different parts of spectrum of relict radiation of the Universe.
I spoke about radiation, which have discovered by Pensias and Wilson.
You spoke about more short-wave radiation.
But, strangely enough, you have proved my formulas. I thank you once again.
Now I would like to talk about living instruments, which can tell to us about influence of a magnetic field to resonance processes. I think, that this theme also can answer some questions about shift of frequencies under effect of magnetic field. These living "antennas" and "spectrometers" have much more major sensitivity, than ours irons (æåëåçÿêè).

Once day, I had read about influence of a magnetic field onto development of embryo of frog. It was a long time ago, therefore, unfortunately, I do not remember the writers of experiment.
The berries of frog, which had age three days, were divided into two small groups and one group was covered with a page of thin permalloy. In the allotted time from berries, which were not covered by permalloy, the tadpoles were hatched. Development of berries, which were under permalloy was hampered, and they, eventually, have perished.
Recently, I have tried to find any experimental facts about global changes of magnetic field of the Earth in Cambrian period, i.e. behind the last 600 millions years.
Unfortunately, my searches have not crowned by success. I managed to find a little information of twenty years' prescription about local changes of the Earth magnetism with accuracy a plus - minus of 15 millions years.
At the same time, the paleontology displays, that the extinction of one sorts of organisms and appearance of new sorts happened with periodicity of 50-70 millions years.
I would like to hear the opinion of members of the forum, which have the information about more modern researches.