Sue... =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Sue... =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):

You are very scientifically trying to explain what in reality is very
simple, dear Sue. :)

I never use scientific explanations for particle light.
If the reader could understand the science, then
the explanation would be un-necessary. ;-)

Sue...

Sergey

=20
Sergey

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3DHHxul_NKhOo

-Aut

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HHxul_NKhOo

-Aut

THE_ONE wrote:

Concerning Particle-Wave Duality, I think the basics have been over
looked and under looked.

All Relativistic Events must involve units or Quanta, such that one may
relate to another for an event to occur. This brings Particles into the
picture.

Events occur over Time. It is a case of series of events, one after
another after an other....

Case #1) In the case of a two slit experiment involving Electrons that
are released only one at a time and are not released until the previous
Electron has completed the entire path from start to finish, in the
long run we will see interference patterns at the destination wall.
The Interference pattern becomes an EVENT.

Case #2) If we monitor the passing of each electron through one of the
two slits, then the interference pattern does not evolve. In this case
the first Event to occur, is the detecting of the electron passing
through one of the two slits.

Therefore, in the second case, we have prevented a larger Event from
occurring by replacing it with a smaller events.

If we do not monitor the Electrons passing through the two slits, then
a different kind of Event takes place.

Here, everything is taken into account, meaning all possible paths of
all the electrons are taken into account to determine the final
outcome, an outcome of possible path agreement which results in the
production of wave-like patterns at the destination w
all.

Since one Electron is released at a time, yet all electrons are taken
into account to produce the final wave-like patterns at the destination
wall, this says that this kind of Event, is an event that sees all
electrons at the same time, meaning a point of view that sees across a
given period of time.

So what we have, are events that occur within Space-Time at a present
moment, but we also seem to have other events that are governed by
Space-Time. Here we must think of Space-Time as one huge singular unit
in which we move within, and this means that a
multi-directional Time exists, and we move within it just in the same
way as we move within the multi-directional Space that also simply "
EXISTS ".

So again I say " Events occur over Time. It is a case of series of
events, one after another after an other....".

Therefore, if we attempt to monitor a possible large HOLISTIC event
that takes a given time period of circumstances into account, and we
attempt do this as it is in progress, then we prevent it from even
happening by replacing it with small RELATIVISTIC events that each
occur in what we call the present or real time.

And so, over time there are series of events occurring, RELATIVISTIC,
HOLISTIC, HOLISTIC, RELATIVISTIC, RELATIVISTIC, ..... , and which type
of event will be next in the series, will be determined by what we do,
or don't do !

Now if this is true, yet it is ignored, then we will continue to try to
find explanations of four dimensional Events while still using three
dimensional thinking. This is a kind of inside thinking that does not
include Space-Time itself, and instead it continues to hold onto a
primitive understanding of Time that says there is a future to come,
but that there is no future yet, and at the same time says that only
the present time exists.

Logic says that we are constantly on the move. If we are at rest in
that multi-directional Space, then we are in motion in that
multi-directional Time. If we are at rest in that multi-directional
Time, then we are in motion in that multi-directional Space. This then
implies that our constant momentum in Space-Time is the equivalent to
the speed of light, yet most of it is across the dimension of Time
unless we change the direction of travel within Space-Time.

Anyhooooo, The point to be looked at is the TWO types of EVENTS,
HOLISTIC and RELATIVISTIC !

Your premises were only arbitrarily assumed. Is it not also possible
via electromagnetic feedback that the fringe pattern is a property of
the apparatus itself, to which the single electron simply responds?
After all, a change in the geometry of the apparatus will surely
produce a change in the pattern. The probability for the electron to
land in any particular spot on the wall or screen is a result of the
electromagnetic fields through with the electron moves in its path,
which are in turn partially generated by the electron itself as it
sends out an advanced em wave. The path differs for each electron fired
simply because each electron originates at a different place on the
emitter and also with different initial momentum. A mechanical analogy
can easily be derived, but isn't necessary since it is already known
that the wave equation used to derive the Airy pattern applies equally
to mechanical systems, or actually vice versa.

IMO, Bohm's pilot wave is really just a superposition of ordinary em
waves. Sergey is one of the most insightful contributors to have ever
graced this forum. =20
=20
Richard Perry

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:

" On the wave-particle duality "

*Abstract*

We will study the phenomena of interference and diffraction of
electrons from the point of modelling of processes, basing on the
quantum-mechanical and classical approaches. We will reveal that when
we represent an electron as some wave function of state or of
probability of location in some region of space, it causes considerable
contradictions producing the wave-particle duality and incorrect
description of the phenomenon. In particular, probabilistic
representation of wave function by Born leads to the fact that such
probabilistic distribution has to exist also when electrons do not
interact with atoms. The probabilistic model premises only positive
values of probability, while the wave function is bipolar, which
additionally distorts the idea of properties of electron.
We will establish that the cause, why in the quantum-mechanical
representation the model is distorted, is that in frames of this
formalism the orbital motion of exterior electrons of atom is neglected
and, consequently, the field of atom is taken stationary. Then
interacting electrons have to have some spectrum of frequencies to
interact in resonance with the atom according to the Schroedinger
equation. This last causes full distortion of the wave function of
electron and factually cancels the spectrum of frequencies and as a
consequence the electron must turn into an EM wave of some resonance
frequency.
As an alternative to this representation, we will model the
electron's interaction with atom from the point of classical physics.
In this model the field of atom will be represented as a field of
skeleton and the field of the exterior orbital electron, due to which
the resulting field becomes dynamic in the near of atom. Basing on the
calculated dynamic field, we will model the interaction of the chain of
electrons with this field and reveal that electrons form the periodic
structure with the wavelength proportional to the product of period of
orbiting of orbital electron into the velocity of interacting
electrons. This wave-like formation propagates from the region of
interaction within some angle, gradually changing its shape because of
difference of velocities of the electrons after their interaction with
the atom. The electrons in this set propagate according to the
Rutherford model of scattering with account of the phase of dynamic
field of the atom. The superimposition of many such wave-like
formations causes the interference and diffraction patterns like the
patterns of X-rays.
This model will fully lift the wave-particle problem together with the
discrepancies inherent in the quantum-mechanical formalism.

Please read the full text here:

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/contents6_1.html#interference

Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine

Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail:

VERGON

In my post in the "What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single
photon' ???" thread I mention that the photons in a stream must travel
in phase in order to register a specific frequency.

The rest of my post is an extrapolation of what a photon is as stated
in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity (http://www.wbabin.net
Under LIST OF AUTHORS click Vertner Vergon).

I shall summarize it here. Since it is a summary, developing processes
are not mentioned and therefore some statements and descriptions may be

a little startling. For full development see above mentioned paper.

First of all I show proof that radiation and matter are composed of the

same basic element.

The "element" mentioned above I call "the quantum". It is the basic
element comprising the entire universe

It is a sphere consisting of a very rarified material that has perfect
elasticity -- expands and contracts ad infinitum because it has no
internal friction. The expansion proceeds to a diameter of one light
second.

It has mass (7.372038 x 10^-48 gr.) and spin. Because of the spin the
equatorial portion creates the magnetic moment, and the
expansion/contraction supplies the electric moment. Note, they are
orthogonal to each other.

Another characteristic of the quantum is that it is co-spatial. That is

multiples can occupy the same space at the same time. However, as the
density mounts this ability is discontinued and more quanta are
rejected.

There are two forms of agglomeration, sequential (which is radiation)
and
concentric (which is matter, i.e., electrons and protons)

In the concentric mode the agglomeration is a standing wave and
therefore
stable (electron and proton). In the sequential mode the quanta act as
waves
and follow Gaussian wave dictates.

Note, when there are sufficient quanta in the sequential mode, i.e.,
high
energy photons, the sequential mode can collapse into the concentric
mode, and the high energy photon transforms into an electron and a
positron pair,
proof that radiation and matter are constructed of the same basic
particle.
This phenomenon also tells us that radiation consists of both matter
and antimatter.

Considering the conformation shown here, the wave/particle duality is
evident
as is wave entanglement.

I spoke of the mass of the quantum. The energy of expansion/contraction

is 6.62566 x 10^-27 erg. (Note this is the energy of Planck's h) Also
note the ratio of energy to mass is c^2. This gives us E/m = c^2 ,
which, when rearranged is E = mc^2.

All these characteristics combine in a fractal manner to create the
universe as we behold it.

As to radiation/matter: Take the mass of the quantum and multiply it by

the frequency of a photon, and you get the mass of the photon
(Eintein's m = E/c^2)

Multiply the quantum mass by the frequency number of the electron,
proton,
and neutron -- and you get their respective masses. Proof that matter
and
radiation are composed of the same element.

If the quantum spheres are traveling in copius numbers, due to their
expansion/contraction and tenuous nature they act as waves. These waves

follow the laws of superposition. Further, they also follow the laws of

Gauss' group waves. The group wave is a standing wave through which
pass, rear to front, the sub-waves that are the photons.

Since the group waves are standing waves they have no motion between
source and observer regardless of motion of same. However, the photons
have a continuous velocity (c) through the group wave. Thus the
velocity
of the photons is constant regardless of motion between source and
observer.

The individual photon is composed of a number of quanta equal to the
frequency number. These are grouped together in the typical Gaussian
manner, i.e., a condensed peaked wave-train. Thus the time of
observation
is less than one second. How much less is a function of its energy

Vergon

Dear Colleagues,

Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:

" On the wave-particle duality "

*Abstract*

We will study the phenomena of interference and diffraction of
electrons from the point of modelling of processes, basing on the
quantum-mechanical and classical approaches. We will reveal that when
we represent an electron as some wave function of state or of
probability of location in some region of space, it causes considerable
contradictions producing the wave-particle duality and incorrect
description of the phenomenon. In particular, probabilistic
representation of wave function by Born leads to the fact that such
probabilistic distribution has to exist also when electrons do not
interact with atoms. The probabilistic model premises only positive
values of probability, while the wave function is bipolar, which
additionally distorts the idea of properties of electron.
We will establish that the cause, why in the quantum-mechanical
representation the model is distorted, is that in frames of this
formalism the orbital motion of exterior electrons of atom is neglected
and, consequently, the field of atom is taken stationary. Then
interacting electrons have to have some spectrum of frequencies to
interact in resonance with the atom according to the Schroedinger
equation. This last causes full distortion of the wave function of
electron and factually cancels the spectrum of frequencies and as a
consequence the electron must turn into an EM wave of some resonance
frequency.
As an alternative to this representation, we will model the
electron's interaction with atom from the point of classical physics.
In this model the field of atom will be represented as a field of
skeleton and the field of the exterior orbital electron, due to which
the resulting field becomes dynamic in the near of atom. Basing on the
calculated dynamic field, we will model the interaction of the chain of
electrons with this field and reveal that electrons form the periodic
structure with the wavelength proportional to the product of period of
orbiting of orbital electron into the velocity of interacting
electrons. This wave-like formation propagates from the region of
interaction within some angle, gradually changing its shape because of
difference of velocities of the electrons after their interaction with
the atom. The electrons in this set propagate according to the
Rutherford model of scattering with account of the phase of dynamic
field of the atom. The superimposition of many such wave-like
formations causes the interference and diffraction patterns like the
patterns of X-rays.
This model will fully lift the wave-particle problem together with the
discrepancies inherent in the quantum-mechanical formalism.

Please read the full text here:

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/contents6_1.html#interference

Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine

Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail:

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:

" On the wave-particle duality "

You inverted simultaneous time. Why did you have all interference of
wave-function collapse disappear like that?

It sounds like a promising avenue of research. Collapse as the collapse
field.

So make the experiment to prove. And the most obvious is to have all
interaction of material be related to inverted time. Each interaction
makes a possible universe in your theory class.

Congratulations. You have discovered the fact that the wave model and
the particle model are both incomplete.

The "wave vs. particle" debate goes back to the 1600s with Newton and
Huygens. DeBroglie showed that it extended from photons to massive
particles as well. It is a 400-year old conundrum.

The answer to the "wave-particle" problem lies 'outside the box.' (pun
intended)

The electron is a physical entity.

The wave is a mathematical construct.

The particle is also a mathematical construct.

Depending on the particular set of circumstances (imposed by the
*observer*) one or the other makes a more satisfactory *model* of the
electron. Each has properties that can be well-correlated to observed
properties and behavior of the physical entity, but under mutually
exclusive circumstances.

The failure of both models to work outside the particular set of
circumstances to which they are tailored is an indication that a new
model is needed.

This new model should 'collapse' to either a wave model *or* a particle
model, depending on the particular set of circumstances imposed by the
observer.

The four-tensor is the most parsimonious model that can collapse to
either a particle or a wave, depending on the choice of coordinates to
be used as a reference in making the measurements.

If a coordinate system is chosen in which the physical entity is at
rest, the properties mirror those of a particle. If, on the other
hand, a system is chosen in which the physical entity is in motion, the
properties mirror those of a wave. The conversion from one coordinate
system to another is a simple Lorentzian rotation in Minkowski space.
The four-tensor is thus relativistically invariant.

The *hard* part is divorcing ourselves from models that we can
*visualize* - models that correlate to our everyday macroscopic
experience. The important part is that the properties and the behavior
of the model should correlate to those of the physical entity,
regardless of the choice of coordinates to be used as a reference.

Pretty simple, really, if you are a blind mathematician. We just can't
let our visions blind us to the facts.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA