Jump to content

Quantitative theory


Ilya Geller
 Share

Recommended Posts

My Quantitative theory coincides with Einstein's, is its continuation; without using space, speed, acceleration, energy, and so on and so forth:

Postulate I: In this volume there is only this exact number of minimal elements.

This postulate is ergodic, in the spirit of Poincare recurrence theorem.

Einstein:

Postulate 1 (Einstein's principle of relativity). The laws of nature are the same in all coordinate systems moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to each other.

Monotheism in both theories.

Postulate II: The inclusion time of the minimum element in any set is the minimum possible.

Einstein the same:

Postulate 2 (the principle of constancy of the speed of light). The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all coordinate systems moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to each other.

And everything is deduced from a single axiom of this theory:

— There are one, two, three or more elements of any point of acumulation (Set Theory).

Everything is proved by the photon mass in the Standard Model, it’s 0.

The theory is proved by double-slit experiment, among many others. Earlier (in this experiment) atoms of the material in which the slits were made were not considered. I claim that it is this material solely that leads to the appearance of the interference. That is, these atoms are disturbed (the standard photoelectric effect, Einstein), which leads to a change in their molar (i.e. quantitative) characteristics: there are more photons in the atoms than in their stationary states (I mean here Bohr). As a result, the elastic force appears, the formula of which I gave in my article on page 5 (https://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec15/papers/lexiclone.qa.final.pdf ).

The elastic force is obtained through reformatting Newton's law for gravity from material to accumulation points; where the definition of what an accumulation point is came from Sets of Theory (Cantor; more in the same my article). This elastic force is recognized as a universal replacement for the force of gravity, Coulomb, Hooke and all other forces and interactions in Physics.

This is exactly the force that leads to the appearance of the perihelion of Mercury: there is a change of quantity (number of photons), under the influence of the Sun, into this Mercury atoms, and as a result, the elastic force appears and puts Mercury into a new orbit. Then the atoms return to a stationary state (Bohr) and the elastic force decreases.

Thus, Einstein's theory of Relativity is continued in quantity; but without relativity, since there are only two bodies in the rewritten (see page 5 of the article) Newton's law. That is, there is no place in my Quantative for the problem of three or more bodies. Also, geometry and arithmetic have no place in it.

Really. even one straight line cannot be constructed through an accumulation point, since such the point is not limited in any way. Since, also, there are only two interacting bodies in this law that form one, then in theory it is possible to operate only with a single Natural number 1, which is equal to 0. (This is due to the application of Hegel's philosophy of becoming — I oppose Russell and Moore — and the Differential essence of processes).

I got many other experimental and theoretical — for example stationary Schrödinger equation — proofs. If one is interested can show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

it is possible to operate only with a single Natural number 1, which is equal to 0.

That's a remarkable claim.

I look forward to your jsutification / explanation.

54 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

And everything is deduced from a single axiom of this theory:

— There are one, two, three or more elements of any point of acumulation (Set Theory).

Please explain the meaning of this statement and its relevance to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

That's a remarkable claim.

I look forward to your jsutification / explanation.

Please explain the meaning of this statement and its relevance to the subject.

Which one? What I mean is to go through Avogadro number, periodic table instead of the standard and generally excepted measures, like distance between, speed, color, taste, energy. The Standard Model provides the ultimate measure: photon. Which is, according to String Theory, a prodigious material point (one or two dimensions). The photon gives the needed quantity, as the measure.

Also Set Theory gives point of accumulation. By contrasting accumulation points with material ones, that is, photons, it becomes possible to understand what is the constant G in the law of gravity, and what is that dark matter.

What I'm writing here is a teaser, for the grilling, because if you describe everything... God forbid to keep within 100 pages.
However, a lot is described in Russian, on a forum. I hope your Russian is strong? Because it will soon become the main language in Physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

However, a lot is described in Russian, on a forum. I hope your Russian is strong? Because it will soon become the main language in Physics.

Tha language of this website is English.

 

59 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

God forbid to keep within 100 pages.

I hope this is not a preamble to a religous offering.

 

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

Also Set Theory gives point of accumulation. By contrasting accumulation points with material ones, that is, photons, it becomes possible to understand what is the constant G in the law of gravity, and what is that dark matter.

Well go on then, I asked for the connection between set theory and your topic here.

 

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

Which one?

I quoted your statement for detailed explanation.

 

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

What I'm writing here is a teaser,

I hope this thread is not just a wind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

What I'm writing here is a teaser,

!

Moderator Note

Please don't. If you have assertions to make, make them clearly. If you're going to promise meaning and then withhold it, the thread will be closed. This is a science discussion forum, not a marketing platform for your teasers.

 
1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

I hope your Russian is strong? Because it will soon become the main language in Physics.

!

Moderator Note

Please stick to one topic per thread. And Studiot is correct, our language for the site is English, so please make sure the evidence you use to support your ideas reflects that.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Tha language of this website is English.

 

I hope this is not a preamble to a religous offering.

 

Well go on then, I asked for the connection between set theory and your topic here.

 

I quoted your statement for detailed explanation.

 

I hope this thread is not just a wind up.

Difficult for me because I am new in Physics, came from Information Retrieval and don’t know the terminology in English yet.

No, it’s not religious.

Quantity is an objective measure: one photon, two, three. The same cannot be said about mass or distance, because they are subjective. Thus I use what the Standard Model provides, photon without mass. I equated photon to the string of the String Theory and went from there. As a material (one or two dimensional) particle photon doesn’t exist in three demential our Universe. And the Standard said it has mass equal to 0. Therefore photon begin to exist as three demential only as a part of a set.

In accordance with Einstein's postulate, the photon moves monotonously and at the highest possible speed. At the same time, nothing in our universe moves like that, but with acceleration. Then the photon is the string of String Theory, I decided.
In addition, Leibniz has a problem of distinguishing the same, developed by Moore (English philosopher). I decided that a photon is this indistinguishable, since its mass is 0. One photon cannot be distinguished from another. And everything in this universe is unique and is a set of Set Theory. Therefore I can put this theory in Physics.

Please also take into account that Einstein had only one experimental proof of his theory for several years — Mercury. I also have a lot: double-slit, Lebedev light pressure, Mercury, "bias current" and others. All involve materials having molar, that is quantitative, characteristics. And when these materials are replaced the result changes, which proves my Quantitative Theory.
Try to replace materials in any experiment? Any material.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

One photon cannot be distinguished from another

You can tell a red photon from a green one.

 

34 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

Difficult for me because I am new in Physics

If this is true I recommend reading and study over guesswork.

There have been several great Russian Physicists, you could then be one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

You can tell a red photon from a green one.

 

If this is true I recommend reading and study over guesswork.

There have been several great Russian Physicists, you could then be one 

There is a difference between photon as such and a photon that has become part of а set (of elements, other photons). Until the photon has become a part of the set it does not exist, it is not observable in any way. For example, photon from a supernova 1 billion light-years from Earth is not observable, it has not become a part of the many elements of the observer (human). That is, such photon is a part of the "dark matter". A not distinguishable from others becomes unique, that is it acquires qualities (such as color) only by becoming a part. Sorry for the tautology, I am inspired by the String Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then how do you make specific predictions?

There is an integral from the equation on the page 5, with all what follows. However I don’t have skills to get it

This is the long story: I use the concept of "orisphere" which I borrowed from Lobachevsky. This is a sphere that has no borders, figuratively speaking. That is, its radius is infinitely large, which fits in with the concept of Cantor's "accumulation point" (Set Theory). But in such an orbisphere there are layers that I have called "density layers": electrons orbits in an atom, or planets into a star system are layers. Then predictions are made based on the fact that in each layer there is only such a possible — strictly limited — number of elements (for example, photons). Which is proved by Einstein and laser, as well as periodic table and Astronomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

There is an integral from the equation on the page 5, with all what follows. However I don’t have skills to get it

This is the long story: I use the concept of "orisphere" which I borrowed from Lobachevsky. This is a sphere that has no borders, figuratively speaking. That is, its radius is infinitely large, which fits in with the concept of Cantor's "accumulation point" (Set Theory). But in such an orbisphere there are layers that I have called "density layers": electrons orbits in an atom, or planets into a star system are layers. Then predictions are made based on the fact that in each layer there is only such a possible — strictly limited — number of elements (for example, photons). Which is proved by Einstein and laser, as well as periodic table and Astronomy.

Let’s have these predictions, and details of how you make them. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

electrons orbits in an atom,

You're using the Bohr model?

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

there is only such a possible — strictly limited — number of elements (for example, photons).

Photons are elements in your concept?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:

Quantity is an objective measure: one photon, two, three. The same cannot be said about mass or distance, because they are subjective.

The number of photons (or any type of particle) within a given volume of space is also observer-dependent. This is called the Unruh effect.

7 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:

At the same time, nothing in our universe moves like that

That’s also wrong. Gluons are massless and move at c as well, just as photons do.

7 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:

All involve materials having molar, that is quantitative, characteristics. And when these materials are replaced the result changes

Wrong again. Gravity acts on all bodies equally, irrespective of their make-up - put a feather and a lead ball into a vacuum tube, and they will fall at the same rate, and hit the bottom at the same instant. This is basic high school physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:

What I mean is to go through Avogadro number, [...]

Stop right there. Avogadro's number is not a fundamental constant of Nature. It depends on two arbitrary choices: 

1) The choice of an arbitrary mass unit (the gram.)

2) The average mass of nucleons (protons, neutrons) as to their abundance when participating in making up atoms and molecules in this galaxy.

Ignorance, when combined with hubris, is louder than a siren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:
15 hours ago, studiot said:

You can tell a red photon from a green one.

 

If this is true I recommend reading and study over guesswork.

There have been several great Russian Physicists, you could then be one 

There is a difference between photon as such and a photon that has become part of а set (of elements, other photons). Until the photon has become a part of the set it does not exist, it is not observable in any way. For example, photon from a supernova 1 billion light-years from Earth is not observable, it has not become a part of the many elements of the observer (human). That is, such photon is a part of the "dark matter". A not distinguishable from others becomes unique, that is it acquires qualities (such as color) only by becoming a part. Sorry for the tautology, I am inspired by the String Theory.

 

13 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:

There is an integral from the equation on the page 5, with all what follows. However I don’t have skills to get it

This is the long story: I use the concept of "orisphere" which I borrowed from Lobachevsky. This is a sphere that has no borders, figuratively speaking. That is, its radius is infinitely large, which fits in with the concept of Cantor's "accumulation point" (Set Theory). But in such an orbisphere there are layers that I have called "density layers": electrons orbits in an atom, or planets into a star system are layers. Then predictions are made based on the fact that in each layer there is only such a possible — strictly limited — number of elements (for example, photons). Which is proved by Einstein and laser, as well as periodic table and Astronomy.

 

I don't know who (or what) you are but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt since you are obviously not the usual crank with a particular agenda.

All these responses are almost what I might expect from an AI that had been told to read a Science library in order to to learn Maths and Science.
Not random but not yet making appropriate connections.
I hope you are really human!

:)

 

So I will tell you a true story of my own experience.

When I was about 13 I learned about forces in structural frameworks (roof trusses etc).
I was also learning about other Sciences as well, in particular about molecules when the ball and stick or framework models were popular.

Anyway I conceived the idea that I wanted to apply structural framework theory to molecules, as no one seemed to have thought of it or tried it.

I did not then know enough to know how inappropriate that was or why.

Many years later I know know why this was inappropriate, but I also now know how a variation called structural dynamics can be applied to molecules.
This is very important in Spectroscopy and some other aspects of Chemistry.

 

I understand your description of accumulation points, also called limit points, cluster points or interior points, in set theory.

I can now tell you that these are mathematical  (topological) conveniences but that they do not need the 'orbisphere' to have infinite, or indeed any measurable, radius.
We use the shorter term 'open ball'.  This conforms to the topological idea of open and closed sets, which is closely tied to accumulation points and leads to the study of continuity and measure theory in Mathematics. But Mathematics requires no connection to anything in the physical world. Sometimes (often) it can be a useful  mathematical model, but it is not the same thing.

 

So press on, but try to reduce the number of your ideas to one or two at a time.
You just have too many at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My prediction: according to my Qualitative there is no thermonuclear reactions in the stars and at all.

1. The cause of interference is in the atoms at the edges of the slits. That is, the photoelectric effect causes the excitation of atoms (at the edges), changes their molar (quantitative) characteristics due to the entry of photons, which leads to the appearance of the elastic force (page 5). This force leads to a change in the direction of coherent photons emitted by electrons / deviation from the shortest path, which is seen as maximums on the screen (electrons has a spin). Thus photons are particles.

2. The formula on page 5 is Newton's law for gravity, modified.

3. There are already three known kinds of points: material, one-two dimensional material (strings of the String Theory) and accumulation points; read String Theory on the second, the third I present here. The first has no dimensions and I will explain it somewhere else.

4. No thermonuclear will last for billions and tens of billions of years, not to mention hundreds. Therefore, I speculate that there is a fourth kind of points that go out along the centers of the orispheres (stars and atoms) and which (the kind) evaporates the energy to the orispheres.

5. Then the madness with plasma in an attempt to remove an electron does not work, billions are wasted. There are always strictly so many elements in such a volume, and no plasma can remove any element. Therefore, a thermonuclear can not be in nature because the electron stays no matter what: the energy is gotten not from sintez. 

6. I predict that there is the fourth kind of points exist and can be detected.

Is it a good prediction?

 

The stationary Schrodinger equation unambiguously says that photons are indeed the strings:

1. The equation is written out of time, there photons, according to Einstein, move rectilinearly and monotonously, non-accelerated. Despite the fact that everything in our universe is moving with accelaeration! Therefore, photons do not exist (even if they are, but outside the Minkovsky space); where time is a measure of the inclusion of an element: I substituted Einstein’s postulate by my quantitive one.

2. The mass of a particle is in the denominator in this stationary equation, where, as is well known, impossible to divide by zero; while the above photons have it equal to 0. So, the stationary contains a childish error, is incorrect and all Quantum Physics is wrong?

3. No, it's not! Everything is fine with Quantum Physics! The stationary is for accumulation points, three-dimensional particles, not for one- or two- dimensional material point.

Thus, Schrodinger unknowingly foresaw that photon mass in the Standard Model shall be 0, as well as the String Theory and my Quantitative. A genius!

 

The Quantitative uses a model based on Cantor’s point of accumulation and Lobachevsky's orisphere, where there are density layers (orbits of atoms and planets, see Astronomy and periodic table). This model coincides with that of the Bohr, although I came to it at completely independently root and it’s based on different considerations: Bohr empirically and I theoretically.

 

And of course Titius–Bode formula: my Quantitative explains the absence of a fifth planet and in the unforeseen future can predict the presence of planets and electrons, as well as new chemical elements and star systems. I don't know how yet, but have a feeling. Prediction?

 

Objectivity means either Natural or Rational numbers, because Irrational and others are artificially rounded. Therefore Quantitive is objective.

 

Wiki: “…currently not clear whether the Unruh effect has actually been observed, since the claimed observations are disputed.” Please prove it and then we will talk.

 

There are only two points of accumulation in the rewritten Newton’s gravity (page 5): therefore “…a feather and a lead ball into a vacuum tube, and they will fall at the same rate, and hit the bottom at the same instant. This is basic high school physics” — is not correct into Quantitive theory because there are three… points of accumulation. Sorry, that doesn’t work because of “synchronization”.

 

“Gluons are massless and move at c as well, just as photons do” — gluons exist and were/ are observed. Photon doesn’t exist and were not/ cannot be observed, as one- or two- dimensional in our three demential Universe.

 

I rewrote Newton's laws. Now the first law sounds like this:

There are material points that are at rest; there are one-two demential material points in a state of monotonous and rectilinear motion (Einstein’s second postulate; all in harmony with the String Theory).

And the updated second Newton's law:

Material points (of both qualities) become parts of accumulation points; where the elastic force is a manifestation of the defect of these points.

And finally, a new sound of the third law:

Accumulation points interact because this interaction helps to reduce their mutual defects and become material points (of both kind). The proof is nuclear explosions.

 

Maxwell 's equations rewritten into molar masses and volumes:

1) The law for the increment of molar volume: the increment of molar volume leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as electricity D.

2) The law for the increment of molar mass: the increment of molar mass leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as magnetism B.

3) The law of transition of an increment of molar mass into an increment of molar volume: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other E.

4) The law of transition of an increment of molar volume into an increment of molar mass: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other H.

 

I try to treat with maximum respect and reverence what was done in Physics before me by the very honorable and worthy people, avoiding as much as possible the introduction of a new terminology. Avogadro number historically has existed for centuries and I took it without questions.

 

Into the Bohr's postulate: «An electron com revolve around the nucleus in certain fixed orbits of definite energy without emission of any radiant energy» — I breathed the universal significance, extending it to all orispheres. Everything has its own unique stationary state, to which the conclusion I could come by reducing all the forces and interactions of Physics to the elastic force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

4. No thermonuclear will last for billions and tens of billions of years, not to mention hundreds. Therefore, I speculate that there is a fourth kind of points that go out along the centers of the orispheres (stars and atoms) and which (the kind) evaporates the energy to the orispheres.

“a thermonuclear” is not a thing. It’s a description of a kind of reaction. “No thermonuclear will last” makes no sense.

We have observed fusion reactions 

13 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

5. Then the madness with plasma in an attempt to remove an electron does not work, billions are wasted. There are always strictly so many elements in such a volume, and no plasma can remove any element. Therefore, a thermonuclear can not be in nature because the electron stays no matter what: the energy is gotten not from sintez. 

We have observed fusion reactions, where electrons are not participants. You are dismissing a wide swath of physics for which there is good evidence, and offer basically nothing of substance.

What is sintez? 

 

One very large problem is that you are “explaining” things without having provided the requisite background, so there’s no point of reference for understanding your “accumulation points” You need to present the foundation before you build anything on top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note this thread has now been moved by the moderators to speculations.

 

I'm sorry but if you can't or won't clarify your misuse of other people's terminology I can't see this thread surviving much longr before it is closed.

It is a shame you do this whilst claiming

22 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

I try to treat with maximum respect and reverence what was done in Physics before me by the very honorable and worthy people, avoiding as much as possible the introduction of a new terminology. Avogadro number historically has existed for centuries and I took it without questions.

What respect ?

How many centuries ?

As a matter of record Avogadro did not claim a particular number when he introduced his postulate in 1811.

"Equal volumes of different gas under the same conditions of temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules"

As @joigus has pointed out that we have derived a number (Perrin 1911) from this postulate that is applicable in our current system of units.

 

I am particularly concerned with your unsupported misuse of Mathematics, whilst invoking Cantor.

In particular in the set {elephant, monkey, tangerine} all those three objects are accumulation points, quite unrelated to whatever you mean by 'accumulation points'.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swansont said:

1.”a thermonuclear” is not a thing. It’s a description of a kind of reaction. “No thermonuclear will last” makes no sense.

We have observed fusion reactions 

We have observed fusion reactions, where electrons are not participants. You are dismissing a wide swath of physics for which there is good evidence, and offer basically nothing of substance.

What is sintez? 

2. One very large problem is that you are “explaining” things without having provided the requisite background, so there’s no point of reference for understanding your “accumulation points” You need to present the foundation before you build anything on top of it.

1. Thermonuclear fusion is the process of atomic nuclei combining or “fusing” using high temperatures to drive them close enough together for this to become possible . There are two forms of thermonuclear fusion: uncontrolled, in which the resulting energy is released in an uncontrolled manner, as it is in thermonuclear weapons ("hydrogen bombs") and in most stars; and controlled, where the fusion reactions take place in an environment allowing some or all of the energy released to be harnessed for constructive purposes.

I mean the second. Nether heard somebody can do it. I insist that this is not possible.

2. I provided: the Set Theory, my article in which I determined what accumulation point is:

16 A point of accumulation is the boundary point of the set M – a point x of the topological space Х⊃М, any neighborhood of which contains an infinite number of points of the set M; where the environs, neighborhoods of point x in the topological space X is the set U⊂Х, for which x is an internal point.

 

 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I note this thread has now been moved by the moderators to speculations.

 

I'm sorry but if you can't or won't clarify your misuse of other people's terminology I can't see this thread surviving much longr before it is closed.

It is a shame you do this whilst claiming

What respect ?

How many centuries ?

As a matter of record Avogadro did not claim a particular number when he introduced his postulate in 1811.

"Equal volumes of different gas under the same conditions of temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules"

As @joigus has pointed out that we have derived a number (Perrin 1911) from this postulate that is applicable in our current system of units.

 

I am particularly concerned with your unsupported misuse of Mathematics, whilst invoking Cantor.

In particular in the set {elephant, monkey, tangerine} all those three objects are accumulation points, quite unrelated to whatever you mean by 'accumulation points'.

The Avogadro constant is named after the Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro (1776–1856), who, in 1811, first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas.[14]

The name Avogadro's number was coined in 1909 by the physicist Jean Perrin, who defined it as the number of molecules in exactly 16 grams of oxygen.[5] The goal of this definition was to make the mass of a mole of a substance, in grams, be numerically equal to the mass of one molecule relative to the mass of the hydrogen atom; which, because of the law of definite proportions, was the natural unit of atomic mass, and was assumed to be 1/16 of the atomic mass of oxygen.

 

Definition in my article: 

16 A point of accumulation is the boundary point of the set M – a point x of the topological space Х⊃М, any neighborhood of which contains an infinite number of points of the set M; where the environs, neighborhoods of point x in the topological space X is the set U⊂Х, for which x is an internal point.

https://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec15/papers/lexiclone.qa.final.pdf

I have experiments that prove. Is possible, for instance, to repeat Lebedev's experiment on the pressure of light on the rod, highlighting it with multi-colored lasers and measuring its rotation speed on the axis, in vacuum. The speed is different and depends on the color, which means that the molar characteristics of photons (for different colors) matter. Consequently, the elastic force affects the speed of rotation. From that follows:
1. Photon is material point, because in the formula the constant G expresses the ratio of photons that form "dark matter" to the number of photons that form sets and have defects —  this is the first ever explanation of the nature of the constant;
2. There is a stationary (in the sense of Bohr, but for everything) state. Then the rotation of the rod  is caused by removing it from this state. The same as for the perihelion of Mercury: it moves to its perhelium becuase it's out of the stationary state.

This experiment is possible: take any car and change the same part in its engine using different materials. For example any cable: try cooper, gold, silver, iron, steal and so on. After that register how rapidly can the car move? These substitute materials have molar characteristics, which influence the elastic force that moves the car. Thus my modification of Newton’s is verified, photon is materail point and so on.

Thus my claim that I continue Einstein’s Relativity is proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I mean the second. Nether heard somebody can do it. I insist that this is not possible

Insist all you want. It’s been done.

Quote

 I provided: the Set Theory, my article in which I determined what accumulation point is

You have to share the information here, not in some article elsewhere.

Will you answer the questions I asked?

On 9/2/2022 at 12:43 PM, Ilya Geller said:

The theory is proved by double-slit experiment, among many others. Earlier (in this experiment) atoms of the material in which the slits were made were not considered. I claim that it is this material solely that leads to the appearance of the interference. That is, these atoms are disturbed (the standard photoelectric effect, Einstein),

Then show the double slit changing when different materials are used. Why do we get interference with red light, which does not have enough energy to cause the photoelectric effect? Why do we see interference with microwaves, which have much less energy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

1. Insist all you want. It’s been done.

2. You have to share the information here, not in some article elsewhere.

Will you answer the questions I asked?

3. Then show the double slit changing when different materials are used. Why do we get interference with red light, which does not have enough energy to cause the photoelectric effect? Why do we see interference with microwaves, which have much less energy?

1. Please mention an article: who could perform thermonuclear synthesis?

2. “I have”? Why? I published a few articles and gave all references in there. You ned them? Read.

3. You answer your questions. What do you need from me? Atoms at the edges (in double-slit, interference, aberration, etc.) have never been taken into account before. No one has seen that the panel material, edge of Moon creates an interference effect! Nothing else! In addition, I offered you an experiment with a car that will completely replace the two-slits or aberration. Do you want me to propose to experiment with a iPad or TV? Can I suggest an implantation of organs into a laboratory mouse? All of them prove that a change in the molar characteristics leads to a change in the elastic force, which I discovered by reformatting Newton's law. The elastic proves that photon is material point (in the agreement with Shrodinger), first time ever justifies the String Theory as the leading theory, and approves the use of Set Theory in physics. As well the fact that I continue Einstein's theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, an egocentric coordinate system is used:
1. There are only two coordinates — the number of elements and time,
2. Just one body considered consisting of two interacting parts (the modified Newton's law for gravity), 
3. The rest of the Universe is represented through the constant G.
Why egocentric? For example, the egoistic motivation for human activity is his achievement of a certain stationary state, when the number of his elements correspond to a certain ideal and order (Poincaré recurrence theorem). The same motivates all not alive things.
The further away a person from this certain ideal state, the greater his defect and the elastic force that motivates him to act. The same is true for all inanimate objects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ilya Geller said:

Thus my modification of Newton’s is verified, photon is materail point and so on.

 

If a photon is a material point, how do you explain the paradox of partial reflection of light by a thin layer of glass?

image.png.aea7ffe8391b8109cbdd9e6e19d13337.png

From QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by R. P. Feynman.

If a photon is a material point, how does this bouncing point, reflecting/not reflecting on the first limit surface of the glass layer react to the existence of a second layer, farther within, so as to reflect/not reflect on the previous surface?

Quantum mechanics explains this easily.

Unfortunately, physics takes more than the recitation of mantras, no matter how many words from topology or other branches of maths you use in your incantations.

You might as well say that everything's made of two elements: mumbo and jumbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

If a photon is a material point, how do you explain the paradox of partial reflection of light by a thin layer of glass?

image.png.aea7ffe8391b8109cbdd9e6e19d13337.png

From QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by R. P. Feynman.

If a photon is a material point, how does this bouncing point, reflecting/not reflecting on the first limit surface of the glass layer react to the existence of a second layer, farther within, so as to reflect/not reflect on the previous surface?

Quantum mechanics explains this easily.

Unfortunately, physics takes more than the recitation of mantras, no matter how many words from topology or other branches of maths you use in your incantations.

You might as well say that everything's made of two elements: mumbo and jumbo.

Light is not reflected, there is no reflection of light. There is the emission of coherent photons by the electrons other particles of the obstacle material. Indeed, some of the photons remain in the material and go to compensate for the defects of the atoms of this material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

Light is not reflected, there is no reflection of light. There is the emission of coherent photons by the electrons other particles of the obstacle material. Indeed, some of the photons remain in the material and go to compensate for the defects of the atoms of this material.

Here's an explanation that's as good as yours: Light is not reflected, there's no reflection of light. Photons know all along where they have to go.

There. Now prove I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.