Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[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 [tex]q_{e}[/tex]. This moment is the function of elementary cycle of time. In the equation, it is set by way of frequency [tex]f_{c}[/tex]. 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.

[tex]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}}}[/tex]

Where
[tex]r[/tex] – radius-vector from center of charge into point of observing
[tex]D[/tex] – diameter of charge
[tex]n_{r}[/tex] – relative amplitude of oscillations
[tex]m[/tex] – frequency quantum number
[tex]\theta\[/tex] – 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?

 

[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.
[tex]M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36}[/tex]
[tex]D[/tex] – 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