Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[russ_watters]

The thing is, MFD, quite a bit is known about lasers and the way they behave. We point lasers at specific spots on the moon for lunar ranging experiments for example. Don't you think that if the effects you describe existed theyd be noticed by others?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Don't you think that if the effects you describe existed theyd be noticed by others?

Russ ... that's not serious.

 

[Rader]

Why not investigate it. Is not this main purpose of this forum to find paradigmatic shifts in knowledge.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
Russ ... that's not serious.

?? I'm absolutely serious. Most people who post new theories in here act like they are the first people to examine the subject of their theories. Frankly, I think that's pretty arrogant.

The behavior of light has been EXQUISITELY studied.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The behavior of light has been EXQUISITELY studied.

So all ... is known ... done business. Nothing to add. Point.
That's good, even very good news.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
So all ... is known ... done business. Nothing to add. Point.
That's good, even very good news.

I have never said any such thing. No, we don't know everything. But we know a whole lot and thousands of high end scientists have done a lot of research on the subject. So for one person to think he's thought of something so important that they have missed is arrogant.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here there should be an attachment.

Not that I can see ... I thought you said there was a site?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Not that I can see ... I thought you said there was a site?

I tried to make the attachment in the all accessible formats. Why it is not reflected in the message, I do not know.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I have never said any such thing. No, we don't know everything. But we know a whole lot and thousands of high end scientists have done a lot of research on the subject. So for one person to think he's thought of something so important that they have missed is arrogant.

Any invention is a thing which others have missed or could not see. Are you accepting all inventors are arrogant?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Any invention is a thing which others have missed or could not see. Are you accepting all inventors are arrogant?

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.

I tried to make the attachment in the all accessible formats. Why it is not reflected in the message, I do not know.

Format doesn't matter, the attachment simply isn't there.

 

[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?