Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
if light had/carried mass, then a light source would also be a source of gravity. You could measure it. DATA. His "mathematical fact" is CONTRARY to DATA. It is wrong.

This has been debated on various forums. There is a theoretical mass for light that is roughly 1/3 on the lowest mass measureable experimentally. So the conclusion is only observably wrong because of the limitations of the equipment used to conduct the experiment.

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

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

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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

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

 

[elas]

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

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

 

[vlamir]

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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

Okay.

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

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

 

[elas]

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


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

 

[vlamir]

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

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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


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

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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

 

[elas]

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

 

[vlamir]

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

 

[elas]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[QuantumNet]

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

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

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

 

[QuantumNet]

I have replied to your mail, McQueen

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

 

[elas]

Michael

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

regards
elas

 

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by elas
Michael

what brings the wave into existence?

regards
elas

What makes the string vibrate?

A loss of mass.

 

[elas]

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

What makes the string vibrate?
A loss of mass.

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
Michael

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

regards
elas

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

 

[elas]

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

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

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

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

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

 

[elas]

Micheal

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

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

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

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

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

 

[elas]

Micheal

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

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

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

 

[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.)