Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[Rader]

Would anyone care to give me some insight.

En general Quantum Mechanics’ does not predict only one result from each observation. What it does do, is predict a certain number of possible results or probabilities of each of them. In the same system and under the same conditions, the path of the particle A to B is measured. The result obtained successively is the number approximately of A to B. The sum of all the histories of the trajectory of A to B in space-time is calculated.

I can visualize this that a determined number of approximate paths can make the approximate calculated trajectory. What is the width of that trajectory? The plank length? What I am asking is, what is the width of an orbit of a particle. If it is the plank length then the trajectory between A and B is a determined, one width and one path decision. Is this correct logic.

 

[elas]

Micheal

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.

Please read Why all the nut cases in Theory development where I have entered a lengthy defence of my theory. Having been forced to research a defense has made me aware of why the opposition is so vigorous. It has also opened my eyes to what leading academics in other branches of science think of QP, String Theory and The Standard Model. It is worth asking yourself in which category they would place your theory, but keep up the good work,
regards
elas

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Rader
Would anyone care to give me some insight.

En general Quantum Mechanics’ does not predict only one result from each observation. What it does do, is predict a certain number of possible results or probabilities of each of them. In the same system and under the same conditions, the path of the particle A to B is measured. The result obtained successively is the number approximately of A to B. The sum of all the histories of the trajectory of A to B in space-time is calculated.

I can visualize this that a determined number of approximate paths can make the approximate calculated trajectory. What is the width of that trajectory? The plank length? What I am asking is, what is the width of an orbit of a particle. If it is the plank length then the trajectory between A and B is a determined, one width and one path decision. Is this correct logic.

I have offered “ the CHANNEL of INTERACTION ” instead of “ FIELD”

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

Only EM wave can move on this channel. This wave it is consecutive change of conditions of elements of fine structure similar to switching of poles of elementary magnets. Speed of switching is a fundamental constant of fine structure.
Such point explains all inexplicable on today the phenomena:
- absoluteness of speed of light;
- origin of inertia (mass);
- origin of gravity force;
- origin of magnetic and EM forces;
- origin of strong force
- all objects orbiting.
Any particle is the certain combination of frequencies (a set of bit or the data set). Its moving occurs as CONSECUTIVE moving this data set through the channel.
It is obvious, that the greater volume of the data (mass of a particle) demands greater time for its moving. The volume of data determines a measure of inertia of object or TIME of ITS REWRITING on fine structure.
The width of the channel corresponds Plank length. Taking into account that any system cannot be in one condition during the different moments of time, coincidence of paths with such accuracy is excluded.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I have offered “ the CHANNEL of INTERACTION ” instead of “ FIELD”

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

Only EM wave can move on this channel. This wave it is consecutive change of conditions of elements of fine structure similar to switching of poles of elementary magnets. Speed of switching is a fundamental constant of fine structure.
Such point explains all inexplicable on today the phenomena:
- absoluteness of speed of light;
- origin of inertia (mass);
- origin of gravity force;
- origin of magnetic and EM forces;
- origin of strong force
- all objects orbiting.
Any particle is the certain combination of frequencies (a set of bit or the data set). Its moving occurs as CONSECUTIVE moving this data set through the channel.
It is obvious, that the greater volume of the data (mass of a particle) demands greater time for its moving. The volume of data determines a measure of inertia of object or TIME of ITS REWRITING on fine structure.
The width of the channel corresponds Plank length. Taking into account that any system cannot be in one condition during the different moments of time, coincidence of paths with such accuracy is excluded.

Let examine this. Then if any particle has a certain combination of frequencies or data set of them, in movements through time, they could not be pinpointed in a said condition. Is this to mean that any system is in constant change though space-time? Can time be broken down to plank units of time? Can a systems wave funtion be in only one condition in a plank unit of time. Does this not account for particle structure?

 

[elas]

Does this not account for particle structure?

This question shows how QP is misunderstood even by its exponents. I have summarized the problem in a lengthy reply in the forum “Why all the nutcases”.
‘the question of whether or not the wave is real or whether the need to use wave mathematics is purely coincidental, has not yet been settled and leading academics have different views on this question’.
This problem arises because QP predicts the existence of entities such as waves, mass and energies that are then given names, but their properties are not defined in structural terms; so QP tells us how the wave behaves but not what it is. Each entity can be tested in a particular manner but not in combinations that allow knowledge of the structure (i.e. is a photon a wave or particle etc).
If QP could be linked to structure it would in the eyes of those who specialise in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge cease to be a philosophy and instead become a science.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by elas
Does this not account for particle structure?

This question shows how QP is misunderstood even by its exponents. I have summarized the problem in a lengthy reply in the forum “Why all the nutcases”.

I have been following it.

‘the question of whether or not the wave is real or whether the need to use wave mathematics is purely coincidental, has not yet been settled and leading academics have different views on this question’.

Whether or not the wave is real, whatever you want to take that as, is debatable, but when there is a observation of fine structure, objective mass manifests itself.

This problem arises because QP predicts the existence of entities such as waves, mass and energies that are then given names, but their properties are not defined in structural terms; so QP tells us how the wave behaves but not what it is. Each entity can be tested in a particular manner but not in combinations that allow knowledge of the structure (i.e. is a photon a wave or particle etc).
If QP could be linked to structure it would in the eyes of those who specialise in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge cease to be a philosophy and instead become a science.

There seems to be built in SAS, in fine structure, through mathematics, by which the law or laws of nature, can determine which is the best way for a system to evolve into self aware complex entities..

Have you seen the web link to the nano guitar, on this site? Has anyone ever condidered building a micro-telescope, the size of atoms, to probe the plank lenght. It would be no different looking into, as we do, out to with a telecope now. We could then view what is between the atom and the plank lenght.

Question how does a fuzzy system become a discrete measurement when observed? Its interesting to read some of the assumptions and that is what they are as no one really knows yet.

Niel Bohr says "on quote" that macroscopic systems can not be considered in the same way as microscopic systems. They can not be discussed in quantum terms. The measurment simple happens, it can not be analysed further and must be accepted unquestionigly.

Quite differently John Wheeler says "on quote" quite a staggering one, that collapse of the wave funtion does not happen, but that all the possible measurements are actually observed, somewhere. In our universe only one is observed, but in an infinite number of alternative universes, an infinite number of doppelgangers of ourselves are observing all the other possible outcomes. We can not know them but they exist.

It seems to me that thinking, assumptions, theory, testing, and confirmation is all part of the game.

 

[elas]

Rader
Thank-you for your reply. I was beginning to think no one had read my piece in'nutcases' or that no one considered it worthy of a reply.
Now I see that the opposition is going to use the beyond explanation defense common to religion and philosophy.
I refuse to accept that such a defense has any place in science, so the battle line is now clearly drawn.
I will answer by argueing that two systems that cannot be discussed in the same way can still be linked together by definning and relating their entities (i.e. by building a bridge).
regards
elas

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by elas
Rader
Thank-you for your reply. I was beginning to think no one had read my piece in'nutcases' or that no one considered it worthy of a reply.
Now I see that the opposition is going to use the beyond explanation defense common to religion and philosophy.
I refuse to accept that such a defense has any place in science, so the battle line is now clearly drawn.
I will answer by argueing that two systems that cannot be discussed in the same way can still be linked together by definning and relating their entities (i.e. by building a bridge).
regards
elas

There are many symmetries en nature, it seem to be a constant. String theory is witness to that. Maybe there is symmetry in your theory to QM. I would have to agree with Tom, it has to be proven with mathematics. Fine structure has to have first and foremost mathematics as its first parameter, as to defining how it works. Theories have to be proven with mathematics so they can be tested and then become proofs.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Rader
Let examine this. Then if any particle has a certain combination of frequencies or data set of them, in movements through time, they could not be pinpointed in a said condition. Is this to mean that any system is in constant change though space-time? Can time be broken down to plank units of time? Can a systems wave funtion be in only one condition in a plank unit of time. Does this not account for particle structure?

Yes. The reality exists in current Plank time only. It is the minimal cycle of time. The continuity is prodigal. Discreteness is economic. The nature always chooses an optimum variant. Any object (the particle or any their combination) has a cycle of time inherent in it. Time for each object individually and represents the counter working on subtraction. From a birth to death. All time cycles are synchronized by the minimal cycle of time. It is fair both for macroobjects and for microobjects.
Time is connected to frequency of a wave the return relation.
It is possible to tell, that the carrying wave of the maximal frequency corresponds to the minimal cycle of time and the cycle of time of object corresponds to a combination of frequencies or a data set.
Each object with each time unit loses the unit of it's data set. This process is observed as radiation of a photon of the certain frequency. But radiation of a photon does not occur in "anywhere" and absorption does not occur "anywhere". Only on channels “ object – object ”. All objects are capable to absorb a data set ( photons) which have supplementing their set up to initial one. It is the process of regeneration.

 

[alflud]

wasn't me. (Sorry.)

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I will freely admit to having only a conceptual (ie, not mathematical) understanding of high end concpets in physics such as the nature of light. But that is all that is required to see that some of his statements are directly contradictory to what is actually observed. Heck, the title of his other thread is itself an easy example. [/B]

You are repeating it with persistence worthy the best application. But when you’ll tell definitely, at last, where this contradictions are observed. Is it your great secret?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
You are repeating it with persistence worthy the best application. But when you’ll tell definitely, at last, where this contradictions are observed. Is it your great secret?

Secret? In the second post of this thread, I said:

That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.

Thats it (others echoed it though). There is nothing more to say except to examine (in another thread) WHY you refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of imperical evidence.

edit: reading back to the beginning, I may have found the source of your misunderstanding. You mention the frequency of hydrogen. I'm not sure if that's the natural frequency or just the frequency of light it absorbs, but in any case, QM - the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle - predicts (and its observed) that particles obey a similar duality. Electrons for example can only be modeled as being in a "cloud" for this reason. And electron stream will create a diffraction pattern. Though the uncertainty gets quickly lower and lower as the particles get bigger, it still exists for all particles. (someone else can get more in depth there - that's about my limit). You may be confusing this concept with the behavior of light. Though similar, that does NOT mean particles are simply high frequency em radiation.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Secret? In the second post of this thread, I said: Thats it (others echoed it though). There is nothing more to say except to examine (in another thread) WHY you refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of imperical evidence.

edit: reading back to the beginning, I may have found the source of your misunderstanding. You mention the frequency of hydrogen. I'm not sure if that's the natural frequency or just the frequency of light it absorbs, but in any case, QM - the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle - predicts (and its observed) that particles obey a similar duality. Electrons for example can only be modeled as being in a "cloud" for this reason. And electron stream will create a diffraction pattern. Though the uncertainty gets quickly lower and lower as the particles get bigger, it still exists for all particles. (someone else can get more in depth there - that's about my limit). You may be confusing this concept with the behavior of light. Though similar, that does NOT mean particles are simply high frequency em radiation.

I do not “refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of empirical evidence”. I completely recognize them. But I draw OTHER CONCLUSIONS on these results. Agree, it is not empty obstinacy in which you reproach me. I try to find the REASON of such behavior of a wave and a particle. And these searches have led me to what you see here.
MY CONCLUSIONS DO NOT CONTRADICT ANY OBSERVATION.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
MY CONCLUSIONS DO NOT CONTRADICT ANY OBSERVATION.

This is getting tedious. Yes. They do contradict observations. Again, your opening statement - the crux of your argument - does not fit with observations. For another example, if what you said were correct, a gravitational lens would act like a gravitational PRISM.

EM radiation obeys the particle/wave duality in all frequencies and which manifests itself more depends on the specific experiment, not the frequency of the radiation being meausured. And the particle/wave duality of light isn't a conclusion to be reached, its DATA. It IS the observation. The observations themsleves display the particle/wave duality. When you look at a diffraction pattern for example, you are looking at a wave phenomenon.

One strange thing here is that you are attempting to fit a binary criteria (yes or no question) to a spectrum: you can't say one thing acts more like a wave than another - either they act like waves or they don't. Do they display diffraction patterns? If yes, its a wave, if no, its not a wave. Same goes for particle properties - can you quantize it or not?

I realize you will refuse to accept this, but its the truth. If you crack open a physics book and ACCEPT what you read, you'll learn it.

I might as well be redundant (save me the effort later): The particle/wave duality is not a conclusion or a theory, it is the OBSERVATIONS themselves. We don't theorize that light exhibits a particle/wave duality, we OBSERVE it.

Besides that, you can just reread your own thread here from the beginning (not that I really think it will help). All of this has been said before.

Let me try another approach. Can you suggest/link an experiment that would show what you are saying? For example, let's say I hypothesized that red light was waves and blue light particles. To display this, I'd set up a diffraction experiment and if I were right, the red light would show a diffraction pattern and the blue light wouldn't.

 

[vlamir]

Originally posted by russ_watters
... QM - the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle - predicts (and its observed) that particles obey a similar duality. Electrons for example can only be modeled as being in a "cloud" for this reason.
...

russ_waters,
QM is the theory of an imaginary world, which is described in the terms of mathematics of imaginary numbers.
I work on the theory of the real world, and recently I have found the equation of the electrical moment of elementary charge q_{e}. This moment is the function of elementary cycle of time. In the equation, it is set by way of frequency f_{c}. I want apart to underline, that Michael earlier had offered this theme for discussion, but anybody in PF has not understood his idea. It is very pity.
Now you can look, what is QM in terms of mathematics of the real world.

p_{q}(m,n_{r},r,\theta )=\frac{2\pi f_{c}q_{e}\sqrt{\frac{r}{D}n^{2}_{r}sin\theta}{(1+18.254(\frac{r}{D})^{2})^{\frac{3}{4}}\sqrt{m^{2}+0.298^{2}n^{2}_{r}}}

Where
r – radius-vector from center of charge into point of observing
D – diameter of charge
n_{r} – relative amplitude of oscillations
m – frequency quantum number
\theta\ – the angle between radius-vector and the symmetry plane of charge.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by vlamir
QM is the theory of an imaginary world, which is described in the terms of mathematics of imaginary numbers.

If you are saying the math and science of QM isn't an accurate description of physical reality, that just plain isn't true. If you don't believe me, you'd better turn off your computer before QM fails and your computer blows up.

There have been a number of theories that when first created made mathematical predictions that scientists didn't like. There is an ongoing debate about the physical validity of certain mathematical models. The mathematical models virtually always show themselves to be an accurate representation of physical reality (that is of course the reason we have them).

Black holes are a good example. The existence of black holes was derived mathematically but many people just plain didn't like the idea. But we have since found them.

A great book (not too mathematical - exactly my taste) that examines the bizarreness of QM is "Schroedinger's Kittens" (can't remember who wrote it). It talks about a lot of predictions of QM that scientists thought were just too bizarre to be physically real. Things like a photon (or even an electron!) being in two places at the same time. So far a lot have been verified and AFAIK, none have been shown to be wrong.

 

[vlamir]

Kepler had written his mathematics for the angels, which roll planets on hard celestial orbs. Heisenberg, Shrodinger etc. had written their mathematics for imaginary world.
Their mathematics cannot explain secret of life and secret of the God.
It means, that the reality is much complex, than we think.
Therefore, we should search new, more perfect, mathematics.
For this purpose the fresh, not ordinary, ideas and physical models are necessary.
The forum Theory Development is intended for search of new models, but not for their funeral.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by vlamir
The forum Theory Development is intended for search of new models, but not for their funeral.

That's right Vlamir ... but if we say that we have another or alternative solution we must accept that it is attacked. This is a discussion forum.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Let me try another approach. Can you suggest/link an experiment that would show what you are saying? For example, let's say I hypothesized that red light was waves and blue light particles. To display this, I'd set up a diffraction experiment and if I were right, the red light would show a diffraction pattern and the blue light wouldn't.

You come near the true, but you are limited to very small range of frequencies. Look more widely, Russ! In a range of visible light the distinction is insignificant. But I assume, that exact experiment should confirm distinction in the diffraction patterns of boundary frequencies of visible light. Besides, I can predict a deviation of red light in a strong magnetic field and absence of such effect for a blue light (TRUE RED SHIFT! ).
Let to take wider wave band now. You cannot deny, that EM radio wave and gamma ray differ from visible light by frequency only. However they possesses the various properties. EM radio wave deviate in the magnetic field and do not do it in a gravity one. Gamma ray has return properties i.e. deviate in a gravity field and do not do it in magnetic field.
I hope, all told above does not contradict any observation and can be confirmed by a community of physicists.
We move ahead further on a scale of frequencies. On one side of a scale, i.e. on low frequencies we'll see the MAGNETIC DIPOLE. On other side of a scale, i.e. on frequencies is higher, than gamma we' see PARTICLES and further, ATOMS.
Certainly, atom is not a simple wave of high frequency. It is a standing wave with the complex structure. It contains a combination of high-frequency and low-frequency packages.
The low-frequency package provides magnetic properties (see above) of particles included in atom – such as proton and electron, for example. The total wave of such particle CREATES the diffraction patterns.

 

[vlamir]

Dear Dirk,
I perfectly understand your ideas of pelastrations.
But I try to express the same ideas by means of the new equations and precise calculations.
See http://vlamir.nsk.ru/index.htm

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by vlamir
Dear Dirk,
I perfectly understand your ideas of pelastrations.
But I try to express the same ideas by means of the new equations and precise calculations.
See http://vlamir.nsk.ru/index.htm

Vlamir that's great. I will check your website and contact you.

 

[Nereid]

Experimental evidence please!

Michael F. Dmitriyev wrote: You cannot deny, that EM radio wave and gamma ray differ from visible light by frequency only. However they possesses the various properties. EM radio wave deviate in the magnetic field and do not do it in a gravity one. Gamma ray has return properties i.e. deviate in a gravity field and do not do it in magnetic field.

Really? Would you be so kind as to give us some links to experiments which show that radio wave (and not gammas) are deflected by a magnetic field, and that radio waves are not deflected in a gravitational field?

BTW, here are a couple of links showing that 'radio' is deflected by 'gravity', just as GR predicts:
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1066_1.asp
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/google_referrer.taf?article_product_code=NATURE&fulltext_filename=/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997_fs.html&_UserReference=C0A804F846519130EC04D5F5051B3FCFDD83

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

BTW, here are a couple of links showing that 'radio' is deflected by 'gravity', just as GR predicts:

Due to the warping of spacetime by the Sun’s gravitational field, the round trip time to the spacecraft was a trace longer than it would have been without this relativistic curvature. The result: a tiny extra frequency shift in Cassini’s radio signals.

As the magnetic field of the Sun "has not been switched - off", I tend to assert it have led to such result.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

To be more understandable.

Magnet dipole...Radio wave ...Visible light...Gamma...Particles
------------------------------------- -----------------------------
magnet properties---------------------------gravity properties

 

[Nereid]

Experimental evidence (again) please!

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
As the magnetic field of the Sun "has not been switched - off", I tend to assert it have led to such result.

Let's see your calculations of the size of the radio-magnetic field effect please.

I'm sure the folks building the LHC at CERN will be interested in this effect. Further, it will be very noticable, seeing as how they have magnets with field strengths >10,000 greater than those which radio photons from Cassini will have experienced (the Sun's mean field at the poles is ~10G, at Cassini distances perhaps only 1% or less that; the LHC magnets are >100,000G).

Another point: the gravitational deflection observed in photons passing near the Sun is independent of frequency (wavelength), just as GR predicts. This independence is seen across the radio spectrum (e.g. VLBI observations of quasars which pass close to the line of sight to the Sun; Cassini, Viking on Mars, ...), as well as into the optical.

Oh, and BTW, your radio-magnetic field idea will have to account for the fact that observations of the radio deflection near the Sun do not appear to vary with time, yet the magnetic field strengths most assuredly do.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Let's see your calculations of the size of the radio-magnetic field effect please.
I'm sure the folks building the LHC at CERN will be interested in this effect. Further, it will be very noticable, seeing as how they have magnets with field strengths >10,000 greater than those which radio photons from Cassini will have experienced (the Sun's mean field at the poles is ~10G, at Cassini distances perhaps only 1% or less that; the LHC magnets are >100,000G).
Another point: the gravitational deflection observed in photons passing near the Sun is independent of frequency (wavelength), just as GR predicts. This independence is seen across the radio spectrum (e.g. VLBI observations of quasars which pass close to the line of sight to the Sun; Cassini, Viking on Mars, ...), as well as into the optical.
Oh, and BTW, your radio-magnetic field idea will have to account for the fact that observations of the radio deflection near the Sun do not appear to vary with time, yet the magnetic field strengths most assuredly do.

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.

 

[Nereid]

report in peer-reviewed paper?

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.

Have you written up your experiment, and its results, and submitted them to a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give us a reference; if not, why not?

I'm no expert, but if the "lasers should be closer to a magnet", it may be that the effect has more to do with the effect of the magnet on the laser than on the light it emits! What happens when you repeat the experiment, with the lasers at differing distances from the magnet?

 

[russ_watters]

It sounds to me like he's SUGGESTING the experiment (I asked if he could). I don't think he's actually DONE any experiments.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Have you written up your experiment, and its results, and submitted them to a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give us a reference; if not, why not?

Take a look at my location. It is clear defines why not. I have addressed at forum’s team with an offer what to do with a new ideas ( in the post “ What about new ideas?”). Regrettably I don’t get any answer.

I'm no expert, but if the "lasers should be closer to a magnet", it may be that the effect has more to do with the effect of the magnet on the laser than on the light it emits! What happens when you repeat the experiment, with the lasers at differing distances from the magnet?

I have in mind lasers should be closer to a magnet regarding the target. Agree, their placement near target has no sense.

It sounds to me like he's SUGGESTING the experiment (I asked if he could). I don't think he's actually DONE any experiments.

You would been surprised, but I have DONE them.
Certainly, I have no opportunity to use such a magnets and lasers which you have . In comparison it is simply toys. But even on them I have received a quite distinctive result. Therefore I suggest to execute experiment on the fine equipment and to receive confirmation of result on 100 %. I hope, a company wishing to make it will be found. Especially if for this purpose it is not needed to start spacecraft and wait for result some months. Distinction in the prices of such experiments obviously. So?
BTW, I have DONE also an experiments by definition of dependence of magnetic force from the frequency of rotation of the magnetic dipole. They authentically shows the return characteristic of this dependence. Prolongation of this characteristic shows zero value of magnetic force at the frequency of visible light. But RED yet have a tiny magnetic property.
I think, your fine equipment does have not enough my ideas and on the contrary. Perhaps, we can find a way of the mutually advantageous cooperation, Nereid ? Anyway, I see your interest to my ideas. As against of a forum’s mentors, unfortunately.

 

[Nereid]

Take a look at my location. It is clear defines why not. I have addressed at forum’s team with an offer what to do with a new ideas ( in the post “ What about new ideas?”). Regrettably I don’t get any answer.

I must have missed it (unless it's a doc3.doc.php attachment earlier in this thread, which I couldn't open); can you post it again please?