- UNREST IN WAVE PHYSICS
Our children are consuming their time, effort, money & mind in school only to discover later that they are absorbing erroneous or misleading teachings. For an instance, it is well known in the 2nd Scientific Revolution (1890's - 2007) that an atom, for example of gold, is mostly empty space, in which its nucleus is orbitted by rotating spherical-particulate-but-not-particulate electrons, where in fact, as what we can see in the scientific photograph below, an atom is filled with electron's beta-photons.
In the 3rd Scientific Shift, we- the unifieldian advocates- are firmly upholding the fact that atoms are not mostly empty spacebut full.
Another erroneous belief in physics is the notion that wave, for example of water, sound, light or an electron, is NOT COMPOSED OF PARTICLES, where in fact wave is a wavy formation of tinier particles and therefore the duality theory is misleading. This had led to the formulation of the Uncertainty Principle, which is misusing the formula "error p" x "error L" ≥ "correct h". If this Principle's formula become CERTAINED, then it will be "correct momentum (p)" x "correct L" = "correct Planck's constant (h)," a re-expression of the De Broglie's equation. In the first place, why try to locate electron in the atom if the biggest area of the sphere of the atom is electrons or beta-photons of electrons themselves? The atom we can see by the scanning tunneling microscopic photograph is the electrons -in a spherical shape- or beta photons themselves. We cannot locate the electron in a particular tinier area in the atom if the atom itself is mostly electrons in contents. Meaning, electron is a term (like water) used to identify a particular aggreagation of much tinier particles (i.e., beta photons). Just like to say, we cannot locate in a specific tinier palce in the sea where is the water if the sea itself is water, nor the Principle of Uncertainty is valid to apply to it to find that position (L).
Now, you may have an idea how misleading is the Wave Notion, and why even the fact shows that this visible lightband
is composed of layerlengths (L) or layered colors of light, they imagine it as composed of wavelengths or wavy quanta of light.
Image: Scientific Picture of Iridium Atoms (National Geographic Magazine/Dr. Erwin Muller)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
UNREST IN WAVE PHYSICS
Certained At Last
Certainty or Uncertainty ?
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle did not accept the simultaneous accurate measurement of the location or position (L) and momentum (mv) of a particle, suggesting that a particle does not have position or momentum or that there is no law of cause & effect.
The Uncertainty Principle is based on a so-called formula
(L) x (mv) ≥ (h)
if the errors in these are (L) and (mv), so that
(L) ≥ (h) / (mv) .
What will happen if we will use correct (L) and correct (mv) ?
It will become an equation, with an accurate value.
Thus, to avoid certainty, the 2nd scientific revolutionary adherents used errorL and error mv and ≥.
2nd Scientific Revolution 3rd Scientific Revolution
(Uncerttained Formula) (Certained Equation)
error L ≥ correct h / error mv correct L = correct h / correct mv
[Principle of Uncertainty] [Law of Cause & Effect]
Applicable to human limitation Applicable to nature
Nature is ‘what happens’ and it does not have limitation on its own as long as it happens. It’s limitation is when it deals with not its own, e.g., nothingness. There’s no accident or accedence in absolute nature. It can identify positive from negative, south from north, and left from right; otherwise, there will be a chaos and no material will be formed. In fact, we can summarize the phenomenon as the selecting of negative by positive, of south by north, and external by internal. No phenomenon does happen without an absolute cause. However, man has a limitation to find out such a cause, some of which reasons are his instruments, senses, and formulations.Principle of Uncertainty suggests of a human limitation and, worst, man’s misapplication of a formula. On contrary, law of cause & effect tells us how nature operates, specifically if the formula is properly applied.
Nevertheless, in certained application, the correct (L) in the equation is but the lambda sign of the De Broglie’s equation
L = h / mv .
Waves of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were Chaotic
Physicists of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were first to attempt to work out a mathematical basis for the behavior or wave-but-particle entity of light, which is believed to be simultaneously a wave and a particle. Their work coerced to climb on the De Broglie’s formula made possible for the people to accept their contradicting notions (wave-that-is-not-particle and particle-which-is-wave) without loss of respectability, bringing themselves into turmoil and mental confusion and formulating layers of excuses to mask the many contradictory properties of the thesis.Neither the De Broglie’s equation proved that such a wave was not composed of tinier particles, nor particles cannot be shaped into wave. Scientists of the past made dilemmas for the light and at the same time want people to swallow those mental disorienting beliefs. They even reached to the point to accept the postulation that the “nothingness” is equivalent to “mass” or “energy”, making it impossible for an object to move when in a vacuum (if vacuum is but a mass) or giving the possibility that a vacuum or nothingness can accelerate, decelerate, stop, or influence the motion of an object or the possibility to convert the vacuum (nothingness) into energy or mass. But of course those non-natural notions was to relinquish any possibility of a notion about the powerful absolute Causer and to weaken the factuality of cause and effect.
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioral entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nonetheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words “radiation”, “quantum”,& “photon” are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as “wave”. Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term “wave” that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Physicists of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were first to attempt to work out a mathematical basis for the behaviour or wave-but-particle entity of light, which is believed to be simultaneously a wave and a particle. Their work coerced to climb on the De Broglie's formula made possible for the people to accept their contradicting notions (wave-that-is-not-particle and particle-which-is-wave) without loss of respectability, bringing themselves into turmoil and mental confusion and formulating layers of excuses to mask the many contradictory properties of the thesis.Neither the De Broglie's equation proved that such a wave was not composed of tinier particles, nor particles cannot be shaped into wave. Scientists of the past made delemmas for the light and at the same time want people to swallow those mental disorienting beliefs. They even reached to the point to accept the postulation that the "nothingness" is equivalent to "mass" or "energy", making it impossible for an object to move when in a vacuum (if vacuum is but a mass) or giving the possibility that a vacuum or nothingness can accelerate, decelarate, stop, or influence the motion of an object or the possibility to convert the vacuum (nothingness) into energy or mass. But of course those non-natural notions was to relinquish any possibility of a notion about the powerful absolute Causer and to weaken the factuality of cause and effect.
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioural entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nontheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words "radiation", "quantum",& "photon" are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as "wave". Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term "wave" that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Find Quasmospectrum
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioral entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nonetheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words “radiation”, “quantum”,& “photon” are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as “wave”. Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term “wave” that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Physicists of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were first to attempt to work out a mathematical basis for the behaviour or wave-but-particle entity of light, which is believed to be simultaneously a wave and a particle. Their work coerced to climb on the De Broglie's formula made possible for the people to accept their contradicting notions (wave-that-is-not-particle and particle-which-is-wave) without loss of respectability, bringing themselves into turmoil and mental confusion and formulating layers of excuses to mask the many contradictory properties of the thesis.Neither the De Broglie's equation proved that such a wave was not composed of tinier particles, nor particles cannot be shaped into wave. Scientists of the past made delemmas for the light and at the same time want people to swallow those mental disorienting beliefs. They even reached to the point to accept the postulation that the "nothingness" is equivalent to "mass" or "energy", making it impossible for an object to move when in a vacuum (if vacuum is but a mass) or giving the possibility that a vacuum or nothingness can accelerate, decelarate, stop, or influence the motion of an object or the possibility to convert the vacuum (nothingness) into energy or mass. But of course those non-natural notions was to relinquish any possibility of a notion about the powerful absolute Causer and to weaken the factuality of cause and effect.
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioural entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nontheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words "radiation", "quantum",& "photon" are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as "wave". Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term "wave" that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Find Quasmospectrum
Monday, May 2, 2011
Waves Which Are Not True
The idea of wave was originally derived from the waves of a sea, a body of water,& then of a flag. Later, such an idea was attached to the sound.
o The first physicist, perhaphs, to suggest sound as a wave motion was Strato of Greece. Two thousands years later, Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni had invented an instrument which could show the vibrating patterns of sound on sand . This might lead to the belief that sound is a wavy motion. The vibration being casted by sound on mirror or water, as what Dayton Clarence or perhaps Wallace Clement Sabine had experimented with, were, in effect, producing dark & light patterns, being imagined as the sound waves. To say sound is wave is like saying water or flag is wave, which, in fact, it is the particles (of material, gas, water, or flag) that form into a wavy shape in certain conditions. We are so sure that wave cannot be formed into water, flag, or material, but water, flag or material can be shaped into wave.
Not only sound (phonic disturbance on particles) but also the visible light was imagined as wave. The wave hypothesis for light was introduced by Robert Hooke, partly, to contradict Isaac Newton. In 1690, Christian Huygens published a theory and suggested that light was possibly a wave or composed of longitudinal waves, like sound waves. He had demonstrated that the so-called sound waves could also travel a straight line and obey the light’s law of reflection & refraction. But most people believed on Newton’s contention in 1666 and & oftenly used the water or sound waves to illustrate the differences between the wave and the particle. Another delemma came in to physics in 1801 or 1803 when Thomas Young decided that only waves can do bands of interference patterns that light was casting on monitor. By applying the equation for water waves, he enabled to measure the color’s bands, until now known as wavelengths, deterimining the violet light in 0.000039 CM and the red light in 0.000075 centimeter in the spectrum’s region. They understood those measures as wavelengths even though there were no waves there but layers of quanta.Another back up for his hypothesis was the ability of sounds to neutralize when colliding on each other and, without knowing that sound is phonically disturbed particles, he pressumed that particles couldn’t do this. And since two light beams from slits could make manifest darkness when hitting each one another, then it seemed for them that light was not composed of particles but of waves. However, later, he refused to render sound wave as the type of the light wave for the reason that the sound’s longitudinal waves could not explain the double refraction of light, that Erasmus Bartolin had discovered by a crystal Iceland spar (calcium carbonate) in 1669. thus, in 1817, Thomas Young wrote to Dominique Arago that the waves could be used to explain the double refraction must be transverse waves, like of water waves. The conclusive evidence -sound wave- that he had used earlier to back up the wave notion had turned out to be a wrong evidence. Even though he had discovered this discrepancy when he was experimenting, he remained a wave hypothesis advocator. In effect, it became a matter of maintaining the wave notion. Dominique F.J. Arago lost his friendship with Jean B. Biot in exchange of advocating the wave hypothesis and joining with Augustin J. Fresnel. However, Arago gave up his support when Fresnel adopted Thomas Young’s theory that light was consisted of transverse waves, as water waves. Contrary to the actual observation, Fresnel rendered the belief that transverse wave did the light refraction. This was because light refracts in two directions when passing in the crystal Iceland spar. He reasoned out that only tranverse waves could be fitted to explain such a double refraction phenomenon.
The wave notion of light might be died as early as 1819 after Arago’s widrawal of rendering it, but beacuse of Prince Louis Victor de Broglie,s suggestion in 1923 that any particle may have a wave property on it (without mentioning that any particle may have too a square, triangle, rectangle, zigzag, or sphere property on it), the delemma (i.e., contradictory) of corpuscular & wave light seemed to be solved. De Broglie came up with the following formula λ=h/p or h/mv, where λ is wavelength (if it is treated as a wave), p is the particle,s momentum (mass x velocity), and h is the Planck,s constant.
If we will explicitly review the wave hypothesis, we may find out that the hypothesis is proving not itself but the corpuscular theory. The notion “de Broglie wave: particles (as subatomic, atoms, molecules) exhibit wave property under certain conditions when moving” is not proving that the mentioned particles are not composed of tiny particles, nor the light is a wavy ray or is composed of wavy entities or composed of waves. We are so sure that atoms, and hence molecules, are not made up of waves but of the light’s particles (photons).
The notion for wave theory was derived from (1) sound and/or water wave and from (2) the misunderstood wavelength. Later, when sound & water waves were found out to be deffective to explain the light wave hypothesis they disappeared unnoticeably, but the assertion of the wave theory remains. Since then and now the true nature of electron and light became an elusive thing and a mystical phenomenon.
The dualism notion became a convenient way to insist the wave hypothesis. If an atom, electron, or a molecule has a wave (zigzag, involute, square) property, would it be meant that the electromagnetic radiation or light is not composed of discrete particles? But the fact is, the so-called waves here are composed of tinier particles. The water wave, so-called sound wave, standing wave, and electromagnetic wave are made up of much tinier particles (water molecules, gas molecules or ionic electrons, adatoms or molecules, and photons, respectively).The so-called light wave is thousands times bigger than the atom. The giant light wave has no photograpical manifestation and yet the tiny atoms do have. Much tinier than atom is the anlagyurtal balangawic region, but balangawic region can be optically seen by its usogamatical manifestation through prismatic materials (such in raindrops in air). Yes, rainbow is the usogamatical showing of what’s the internal part (particularly simuoval balangawic region) of every atom looks like.
WAVE HYPOTHESIS : (1) partly to contradict the corpuscular theory of Isaac Newton, (2) wavelength equations were applied to the layered color’s bands of the light beam after comparing light to the run of water or sound, (3) Thomas Young decided that only waves could do bands of interference patterns (implying that the water’s particles or molecules could not do interference, refraction, & diffraction, because only waves can do), (4) even though wrong Fresnel believed on that transverse waves (as water waves) could double refract or split into two directions outside their original plane (direction), (5) according to de Broglei’s equation: it is possible that any particle (subatomic, atom, molecule) may have a wave property and therefore, if light is particle, light may have a wave property (without realizing that particles may have too a square, zigzag, an involute property), (6) 2nd scientific revolutionary scientists thought that wave and particle are two dirrefent entities (without realizing that their so-called waves are absolutely composed of particles, for there are no water waves or sound waves without particles, e.g., molecules, or no light ray without light’s particles, i.e., photons, (7) they use water and sound wave as a pattern for their so-called light wave, where in reality their light wave is neither longitudinal or transverse wave but a mystical double of perdicular wings, (8) although wrong, they use Nicol prism effect, etc., to explain the mystical double wings of their light wave (where in fact Nicol prism effect is due to the redoña twisting of a light ray’s portion).
◄Previous……Next
Misapplied De Broglie's equation
The problem of adhering wave theory is that by this notion proper factual thinking & reasoning are neglected and ruined. for an instance, some proponents are impliedly suggesting that the spherical particles, particularly
are not particles but waves, because some formations of water molecules may resemble the shape they formed.
Of course, in this way of thinking, the misleading conception is identifying particles as solid and defining wave as not-solid. The beam of particles that performs wave, standing wave or wave motion is not solid, but it does not mean that the definition of “not solid” is “wave” and vice versa. Beam, stream, smog, fume, smoke, mist, glue, jelly, gum arabic, air, salt, sugar, cloud, rays, conductor, crystalloid and colloid are all composed of particles, though it doesn’t necessarily mean that their particles are solid, nor solid means particles. what’s solid is the object formed by some of those particles, rock salt for example.
Wave is an effect or a shape the collectively moving particles formed or performed. A doubtless solid object that can perform wave motion, particularly oscillations in position, is the guitar’s vibrating string. Its standing wave and waving string are for sure made up of particles, and without those particles there will be no guitar’s string’s standing wave, vibrating string, and wave motion. To test: Let us eliminate or get rid of all the string’s particles (atoms) and we will notice that no wave or whatsoever will be manifested. Like wise, stream of fine particles of dust are composed of solid particles but can perform wave motion. Why? Because it’s the particles that are solid and not the stream, and those particles are movable and shape-able into wave.
What are the differences between the wave motion and particle motion? The differences are the number of particle and the electrostatic aggregation of the moving particles. A test for them is a slit. Obviously, small particle cannot wave before or after passing in the slit for the reason that it has no electrostatically connected companions. But a beam (or stream) of particles can perform, because its particles, although loosely aggregated, are electrostatically connected and shape-able into wave.Is there a difference between a particle and a beam of those particles? Constitutionally, no! But in quantity and perhaps in state of matter, yes. Particle is one, but a beam is composed of many particles. Knowing these things, we can ascertain that a beam of ionic electrons is not necessarily the ionic electron itself, so that what was measured as λ in the De Broglie’s equation by an ionic electron’s momentum (mv) is the so-called wavelength of the beam of electrons.The misapplication of the De Broglie’s equation is that they are indirectly thinking beam as an ionic electron, or directly thinking λ as the wavelength of the ionic electron (as if the beam of ionic electrons is composed of only one ionic electron). Images credits: Erwin W. Muller/National Geographic, and Ray Tomes
Pieces of Evidence which Favor the Particulate Nature of Light
In 1679 Olaus Roemer announced at the Academy of Sciences in Paris that light was propagating at the velocity of (equivalent to) 227 000 kilometers per second. (The accurate value is 299 792.458 km/s.) He came up with this finding after having noticed that Jupiter was casting its shadow on its moons progressively earlier when the Earth was nearer on the Jupiter’s orbit and progressively later when the Earth was remoter. He had thought that the light must have a finite velocity since the light- and, in effect, the shadow- from the giant planet was taking several minutes to reach the Earth as the Jupiter was drawing near on or far from the Earth’s orbit. James Bradley enabled to use the “aberration” or distortion of light to calculate such a speed.
Aberration
Bradley, in 1728, came to a realization that if a man is holding an umbrella during a rainy day, that man must slant or angle his umbrella in the direction in which he is walking. The faster he walks, the more he must angle the umbrella.
James Bradley applied this principle to know if whether the Earth was moving or not, since some authorities during those days were presuming that parallax (apparent displacement) of stars could not be detected because the Earth was not moving on its orbit (as declared by the Roman Catholic Church). So, if Earth was not moving, no apparent change in the position of the stars if he had angled his telescope and no aberration (deviation) of light. Moving light and moving observer could cause an aberration of light. But the result of his experiment was contrary to the purely belief of the then science & religious communities, because there was an aberration and this was due to the motion of the Earth -where he was observing from- and motion of the monitored light (from stars).
Striking Steel, Melting a Hole
Like rain, which is composed of particles or molecules, light is a shower of particles making an aberration when the telescope is slightly slanted. And like bullets, a high intensity light beam can make a hole bigger when fired to a metal plate.
In the factual picture here the focused rays of the Sun melt a hole in steel, theoretically because the overpopulating quantized photons between the intruded steel’s atoms can move and, apparently, break the pengralets (electron bonds) of the molecules as they hit them.
Raman Spectra or Compton Effect
With the Bragg’s technique, in 1923, Arthur H. Compton had discovered that some X rays were weakened (lengthening in layerlength or, conventionally, wavelength) by matter. After four years, this effect was noticed too by Sir Chandrasekhar on visible light. Theoretically, when such a quantum of photons struck an atom or sphere of beta-photons, some of the quantized photons are absorbed and partly caused to move the electron. Apparently, the momentum of a quantum is weakened as it is stricken an electron of a molecule.
Photoelectric Effect
Emission or projection of ionic electrons when hit by threshold keying quantized photons is because of unlocking beta-photons from attaching on the photoelectric substance’s atoms. As Einstein correctly theorized, only quantum with threshold, or higher, energy can move out an electron from an atom, and the kinetic energy of that escaping electron is dependent on the energy of the striking quantum. If the quantum’s energy is below the threshold, the electron (beta-photons) cannot be unlocked or fred. If above threshold, the escaping electron is more energetic than that with the threshold energy. Now, if two threshold-bearing quanta strikes the substance (e.g., zinc), two ionic electrons will be unlocked. Thus, the number of escaping electrons is dependent on the number of the impinging quanta. This phenomenon is an evidence that when proper quantized photons hit a photoelectric substance, an electron (beta-photons) will be unlocked and then ejected.
Quanta or Bundles of Energy
Based on traditional wave theory, an ideal wave may be characterized by an infinite spatial extension, leading to a belief that radiation is absorbed or emitted continuously (or in a gradual manner). Such an assumption predicts that if the ray’s intensity is graphed versus the frequency, the curve would continue to rise and show up off the grap. This was in contradictory with what is factual, for the intensity of radiation falls off toward the higher end of the so-called frequencies. To settle down this violet catastrophe of light, Max K.E.L. Planck tried it in 1900 by experimentation, and he discovered, rather, phenomenon that discredited the theory. Therefore he gave another explanation: radiation energy was not emitted or absorbed continuously but, rather, in a discontinuous or stepwise manner, he conceived it as occurring as bundles (which he called quanta). with this he could formulate
Redoña twisting ray
The bending of a light beam’s portion is not always in angled, straight path. It’s a natural event that a beam’s portion turns at certain degrees when sliding on any tip or edge. Such this sliding is a clear indication that the beam is particulate in nature. In prism, the internal edge is rectangular, while in magnifying lens or transparent sphere is circular. The external edge of a pinhole or small ball, like all of the mentioned edges, can slip or slide some portions of a hitting light beam and twist them at 180 degree. the Redoña twisting of light may lighten, circularly, the dark shadow of a small ball at certain distance. This bending of light is not because of waves, as claimed by wave proponents, but because of the sliding quanta when hitting a non-completely absorbing object’s edge.
This phenomenon can be best tested as illustrated below:
Supposed that a portion of asteroid Q’s shadow is cast on the external edge of a Big-asteroid. Then, the Earth is aligned to but at greater distance from the Big-asteroid, while an outerspace observatory is on the upper direction of the Earth. Light is the image carrier and its photons are the colorfully image framer. shadow is an absence of light. As light from the Sun strikes the asteroid Q, at certain angle if asteroid Q travels downward, its image (shadow) will be seen on the upper external edge of the Big-asteroid and on the observatory. At our surprise, a 3rd shadow of the asteroid Q can be observed too on the planet Earth, which we supposed-to-be must be hindered by the Big-asteroid. The 3rd shadow, however, is up-side down or inverted. Now, if Earth moved upward slightly reaching the supposed place of the outerspace observatory, the two shadows (one is properly aligned and the other one is inverted) can be detected both on Earth.
Why an inverted shadow is casting to the suppose direction of the Big-asteroid’s shadow? The reason is because when the quantized photons from the light source (e.g., Sun) hit the external edge of the Big-asteroid they slide on, stressed, and then twisted at 180° .
Of course this way of experimentation is too impractical to be done, but with this fact we can indirectly explain why a Nicol prism effect happens.
A portion of a light beam is slided and then twisted at certain degree when passing in a Nicol prism, while the other beam’s portion is properly aligned. This phenomenon is not because of the so-called light waves, but because of the particulate nature of light.
Refraction
Quantized photons are ideally massless. However, their mass can become externally detectable at some certain conditions and make them affected by a foreign object. For an instance, a light ray has constant velocity in a vacuum, but it decelerates when diagonally penetrates a rectangular transparent object (e.g., glass).
In a vacuum, all quanta have a uniform constant velocity. If that prismatically disturbed, the velocity of every quantum is decelerated. This refraction can be best understood not by assuming light as wave, but as particles changing in direction. Some books describe refraction as an analogy to a column of marching men that altered in direction and slowed down when it passed from a smooth parade ground to a rough field. Of course, the real reasons are not as simple as that.
Factually, very obvious that the certain transparent object’s contents, possibly the beta-photons, influence the quantized photons of light and vice versa.
Diffraction
Another indirect effect of refraction is the prismatic diffraction. In this phenomenon, a light beam when inside a prism refracts, then diffracts, and then turns at 180 degree, showing the layers of colorful light rays outside the prism invertedly.
The atomic balangawic region is usogamatically shown as gradual colors of rainbow by a prismatic diffraction. The violet layer usogamatically represents the deeper layer, while the red represents the upper portion of the balangawic. Color is but a prismatically decelerated visible light ray or a prismatically lengthened visible light’s quantum. The widest stretchability length (or traditionally wavelength) of any e-ray is 299 792 458 meters and a quantum with this layerlength ( λ ) is emitted from the atom.Like sound gaseous waves, light beam can be diffracted. If a beam of gaseous waves is composed of gaseous particles (molecules), then we have a strong conclusion that a light beam is also composed of particles, so that a beam (stream) is a beam of tinier particles. although wave proponents are subliminally teaching that beam or stream is not composed of much tinier particles, but as far as natural phenomenon is concerned, a beam of dust particles, of light, of atoms, of molecules, of electrons, or of ions is scientifically composed of particles.
Image Credits: Picture of melting metal: Joe Scherschel/Time Inc., Life Nature Library
Matter Waves and Mystical Waves
In quantum physics, wave or duality proponents are indirectly suggesting that water & sound waves are not composed of tinier particles; otherwise, they will prove that their waves are constituted of particles and, in effect, the requirement for a wave theory is only a decorative. Nevertheless, water waves are framed by and consisted of water particles, the H 2 O molecules.
These particles formed into transverse waves if a surface area of the water is shorthly compressed, inwardly, resulting with the abrupt hollowing of that point and formation of crest around it. Below the shallow portion is the trough’s edge, which is composed too of particles. Without molecules or atoms, particularly movable not solidified particles, no transverse wave.
The Redoña test for this fact is a vessel with water or a closed container with a ringing bell inside. Small ripples or waves of water are formed traveling outyward from the portion whwere an abrupt tipping was striken on the water’s surface. We can notice a fact that true transverse waves cannot or do not deflect, diffract, or refract inward to the water or outward into the air. If we will remove water molecules from the vessel, certainly no waves can be shaped when we will throw a tiny rock in the vessel. Akin to this reasoning, no sound waves will be created inside an evacuated tightly closed container. The so-called sound waves (or properly sound formed consecutive expanding spheres) are composed of movable not solidified particles. sound is phonic disturbance on particles being passed by molecules, atoms, subatomic particles or quantized photons to another.
Waves are crests & troughs. Sound waves, however, are consecutive of concentric expanding spheres, in which the dilating sphere’s circumference is the supposed crest and the shallows before & after it are the troughs. It is termed the longitudinal (compressional) wave. Nonetheless, sound (or phonic disturbance) can be passed even without the gaseous waves, as in the case of electric sound traveling inside a solid conductor; the conductor does not need to be shaped into a wave to let pass the electric phonic disturbances. In fact it is the particles that carry the sound and not the wave.
Unlike water wave which travels as a single expanding flat, the sound wave travels as an expanding sphere or in volumic (three-dimensional) direction. Water wave, however, is the explicit example of physics’ wave by which we prove that its standing wave is consisted of tinier particles.
Another evidence that standing waves are composed of tinier particles is the scanning tunneling microscope microscope (STM) image shown below.
For sure , without those particles there’s no such adatomic waves.
All examples of waves we have presented are nature-occurring waves and observable real matter waves.
There are, however, non-nature waves. the familiar example of hoax wave is the so-called visible light wave.
Even full of doubts and with uncertainty, that so-called light wave is believes on in the 2nd Scientific Revolution to be really existing. In the 1st Scientific Revolution “Huygens proposed that light consists not of particles but of waves” (The Book of Popular Science vol.9, p.65, Grolier, Inc. Canada, 1976). It was believed on that the entities making up light were waves. since all waves we have mentioned earlier are constituted of tinier particles, then the waves of Huygens were different and possibly not occurring in nature. light is believed to be consisted “of a wave motion in both an electric and magnetic field, which oscillate with the same frequency but at right angels to each other. The two fields also oscillate at right angles to the direction of travel ” (Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science,p.75, Chicago, 1987). At first glance to this description, we may imagine their wave as the image below.
But their wave is more mystical than that image. In fact they admitted that “its precise nature is something of an enigma.” They imagine the giant light waves as illustrated below.
Picture of factual gold atoms are shown below:
As compared to the size of a factually photographed atom, DNA molecule, or virus, the so-called light wave is gigantic and yet no scientific photrograph or whatsoever. To try to resolve the dilemma, they understand particles and waves as behaviors (i.e., particles motion and wave motion, respectively). Notwithstanding even this definition leads to the question: Are the moving waves and particles not consisted of particles? The answer is, obviously, negative. Streams of particles and moving waves are both composed of particles
The so-called light waves have no trough or shallow portion because all of the wings are two-dimensional crests and the light waves could not exist in 3-dimensional expanding sphere without eliminating one plane or field of the wings. With this unsolvable dilemma, wave proponents are not trying to have a drawing of light waves as expanding spheres of electromagnetic radiation originating from an atom or source. It is impossible to make a sketch of light waves inside expanding spheres of radiation without destroying the theory.
To test: Draw a sphere, in the center of which is a smaller atom. From the atom radiates the mystical perpendicularly planes or fields of the light waves’ wings. Can you make these perpendicularly planed wings 3-dimensional inside that sphere?
Of course yes, but together with the doom of the wave theory.
Waves and Mysrtical Waves by Allan Poe Bona Redoña
Images credits: Water Waves (Joseph F. Alward PhD, Department of Physics, University of the Pacific);
Quantum Corral by IBM (Artists: M.F. Crommie, C.P. Lutz, & D.M. Eigler. Confinement of Electrons to Quantum Corrals on a Metal Surface. Science 262, 218-220, copyright 1983); Perpendicular transverse waves (drawing by Allan Poe B. Redona); Mystical Waves from an atom (drawing by APBR)
◄Previous……Next►
Magnification
The stretching of a light ray and the expansion of its front can be factually proved by letting it to pass through a magnifying glass at certain distance on a white paper inside a dark room. At certain angle, the ray will be seen performing the Redoña light twisting. As the degree of the lens’ angle is stepwisely reduced or added, the ray may be stretched while its front is widened. These properties have limitation.
In ordinary stretching, a light ray entering an atom may be expanded after leaving the atom, and we can probably calculate the expansion by the equation given in the image below.
where r is the expasion or stretched radius, l is the length of the re-emitted ray (from the passed in atom to a certain distance), and i is the length of the incident light ray (from the source to the atom).
Nevertheless, the phenomenon of magnification is primarily due to the stretchability & expandability of the light ray. In addition to such quanta’s capabilities, magnification is not nonsense because of the usogamation.
In usogamatics, 1 allenorfied by 1 is equal to 1 twicely saturated (or one saturated two) .
The base number in this mathematical system is the unit incidense, while the sub or subscripted number is the saturater.
The atoms that re-emit the original image do not multiply the image but, by usogamation, rather saturated or intensified it. Expanding the ray is nonsense if it is lesserly saturated because it become undetectable. Enough number of identical quanta is needed to detect or observe appreciably the image. This conjecture is validated by the fact that the more magnification in microscope, the lesser the intensity of or the dimmer the background light ray, and the fact that the reflecting telescope is more useful if it can collect more saturating quanta from celestial object.
Every atom in the lens which re-emits, or in the mirror that reflects, the image is functioning as a saturation contributor. (The difference between the quanta of re-emission here and reflection is that the former are twisting at 180 degrees, while the latter are propagating upside down.)
Nevertheless, even if the number of atom that re-emit is zillion, the image will remain one & the same by the usogamation; and the threshold sensitivity of our eye’s photoreceptors neccessatates the enough quantity of quantum.
Therefore, stretching the quanta (or expanding the light ray) is not satisfying; to be noticeable, there must be enough quantity of the usogamatically stretched quanta.
◄Previous……Next►
o The first physicist, perhaphs, to suggest sound as a wave motion was Strato of Greece. Two thousands years later, Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni had invented an instrument which could show the vibrating patterns of sound on sand . This might lead to the belief that sound is a wavy motion. The vibration being casted by sound on mirror or water, as what Dayton Clarence or perhaps Wallace Clement Sabine had experimented with, were, in effect, producing dark & light patterns, being imagined as the sound waves. To say sound is wave is like saying water or flag is wave, which, in fact, it is the particles (of material, gas, water, or flag) that form into a wavy shape in certain conditions. We are so sure that wave cannot be formed into water, flag, or material, but water, flag or material can be shaped into wave.
Not only sound (phonic disturbance on particles) but also the visible light was imagined as wave. The wave hypothesis for light was introduced by Robert Hooke, partly, to contradict Isaac Newton. In 1690, Christian Huygens published a theory and suggested that light was possibly a wave or composed of longitudinal waves, like sound waves. He had demonstrated that the so-called sound waves could also travel a straight line and obey the light’s law of reflection & refraction. But most people believed on Newton’s contention in 1666 and & oftenly used the water or sound waves to illustrate the differences between the wave and the particle. Another delemma came in to physics in 1801 or 1803 when Thomas Young decided that only waves can do bands of interference patterns that light was casting on monitor. By applying the equation for water waves, he enabled to measure the color’s bands, until now known as wavelengths, deterimining the violet light in 0.000039 CM and the red light in 0.000075 centimeter in the spectrum’s region. They understood those measures as wavelengths even though there were no waves there but layers of quanta.Another back up for his hypothesis was the ability of sounds to neutralize when colliding on each other and, without knowing that sound is phonically disturbed particles, he pressumed that particles couldn’t do this. And since two light beams from slits could make manifest darkness when hitting each one another, then it seemed for them that light was not composed of particles but of waves. However, later, he refused to render sound wave as the type of the light wave for the reason that the sound’s longitudinal waves could not explain the double refraction of light, that Erasmus Bartolin had discovered by a crystal Iceland spar (calcium carbonate) in 1669. thus, in 1817, Thomas Young wrote to Dominique Arago that the waves could be used to explain the double refraction must be transverse waves, like of water waves. The conclusive evidence -sound wave- that he had used earlier to back up the wave notion had turned out to be a wrong evidence. Even though he had discovered this discrepancy when he was experimenting, he remained a wave hypothesis advocator. In effect, it became a matter of maintaining the wave notion. Dominique F.J. Arago lost his friendship with Jean B. Biot in exchange of advocating the wave hypothesis and joining with Augustin J. Fresnel. However, Arago gave up his support when Fresnel adopted Thomas Young’s theory that light was consisted of transverse waves, as water waves. Contrary to the actual observation, Fresnel rendered the belief that transverse wave did the light refraction. This was because light refracts in two directions when passing in the crystal Iceland spar. He reasoned out that only tranverse waves could be fitted to explain such a double refraction phenomenon.
The wave notion of light might be died as early as 1819 after Arago’s widrawal of rendering it, but beacuse of Prince Louis Victor de Broglie,s suggestion in 1923 that any particle may have a wave property on it (without mentioning that any particle may have too a square, triangle, rectangle, zigzag, or sphere property on it), the delemma (i.e., contradictory) of corpuscular & wave light seemed to be solved. De Broglie came up with the following formula λ=h/p or h/mv, where λ is wavelength (if it is treated as a wave), p is the particle,s momentum (mass x velocity), and h is the Planck,s constant.
If we will explicitly review the wave hypothesis, we may find out that the hypothesis is proving not itself but the corpuscular theory. The notion “de Broglie wave: particles (as subatomic, atoms, molecules) exhibit wave property under certain conditions when moving” is not proving that the mentioned particles are not composed of tiny particles, nor the light is a wavy ray or is composed of wavy entities or composed of waves. We are so sure that atoms, and hence molecules, are not made up of waves but of the light’s particles (photons).
The notion for wave theory was derived from (1) sound and/or water wave and from (2) the misunderstood wavelength. Later, when sound & water waves were found out to be deffective to explain the light wave hypothesis they disappeared unnoticeably, but the assertion of the wave theory remains. Since then and now the true nature of electron and light became an elusive thing and a mystical phenomenon.
The dualism notion became a convenient way to insist the wave hypothesis. If an atom, electron, or a molecule has a wave (zigzag, involute, square) property, would it be meant that the electromagnetic radiation or light is not composed of discrete particles? But the fact is, the so-called waves here are composed of tinier particles. The water wave, so-called sound wave, standing wave, and electromagnetic wave are made up of much tinier particles (water molecules, gas molecules or ionic electrons, adatoms or molecules, and photons, respectively).The so-called light wave is thousands times bigger than the atom. The giant light wave has no photograpical manifestation and yet the tiny atoms do have. Much tinier than atom is the anlagyurtal balangawic region, but balangawic region can be optically seen by its usogamatical manifestation through prismatic materials (such in raindrops in air). Yes, rainbow is the usogamatical showing of what’s the internal part (particularly simuoval balangawic region) of every atom looks like.
WAVE HYPOTHESIS : (1) partly to contradict the corpuscular theory of Isaac Newton, (2) wavelength equations were applied to the layered color’s bands of the light beam after comparing light to the run of water or sound, (3) Thomas Young decided that only waves could do bands of interference patterns (implying that the water’s particles or molecules could not do interference, refraction, & diffraction, because only waves can do), (4) even though wrong Fresnel believed on that transverse waves (as water waves) could double refract or split into two directions outside their original plane (direction), (5) according to de Broglei’s equation: it is possible that any particle (subatomic, atom, molecule) may have a wave property and therefore, if light is particle, light may have a wave property (without realizing that particles may have too a square, zigzag, an involute property), (6) 2nd scientific revolutionary scientists thought that wave and particle are two dirrefent entities (without realizing that their so-called waves are absolutely composed of particles, for there are no water waves or sound waves without particles, e.g., molecules, or no light ray without light’s particles, i.e., photons, (7) they use water and sound wave as a pattern for their so-called light wave, where in reality their light wave is neither longitudinal or transverse wave but a mystical double of perdicular wings, (8) although wrong, they use Nicol prism effect, etc., to explain the mystical double wings of their light wave (where in fact Nicol prism effect is due to the redoña twisting of a light ray’s portion).
◄Previous……Next
Misapplied De Broglie's equation
The problem of adhering wave theory is that by this notion proper factual thinking & reasoning are neglected and ruined. for an instance, some proponents are impliedly suggesting that the spherical particles, particularly
the factual atoms of iridium
The circles of waves here are of the water
Wave is an effect or a shape the collectively moving particles formed or performed. A doubtless solid object that can perform wave motion, particularly oscillations in position, is the guitar’s vibrating string. Its standing wave and waving string are for sure made up of particles, and without those particles there will be no guitar’s string’s standing wave, vibrating string, and wave motion. To test: Let us eliminate or get rid of all the string’s particles (atoms) and we will notice that no wave or whatsoever will be manifested. Like wise, stream of fine particles of dust are composed of solid particles but can perform wave motion. Why? Because it’s the particles that are solid and not the stream, and those particles are movable and shape-able into wave.
What are the differences between the wave motion and particle motion? The differences are the number of particle and the electrostatic aggregation of the moving particles. A test for them is a slit. Obviously, small particle cannot wave before or after passing in the slit for the reason that it has no electrostatically connected companions. But a beam (or stream) of particles can perform, because its particles, although loosely aggregated, are electrostatically connected and shape-able into wave.Is there a difference between a particle and a beam of those particles? Constitutionally, no! But in quantity and perhaps in state of matter, yes. Particle is one, but a beam is composed of many particles. Knowing these things, we can ascertain that a beam of ionic electrons is not necessarily the ionic electron itself, so that what was measured as λ in the De Broglie’s equation by an ionic electron’s momentum (mv) is the so-called wavelength of the beam of electrons.The misapplication of the De Broglie’s equation is that they are indirectly thinking beam as an ionic electron, or directly thinking λ as the wavelength of the ionic electron (as if the beam of ionic electrons is composed of only one ionic electron). Images credits: Erwin W. Muller/National Geographic, and Ray Tomes
Pieces of Evidence which Favor the Particulate Nature of Light
In 1679 Olaus Roemer announced at the Academy of Sciences in Paris that light was propagating at the velocity of (equivalent to) 227 000 kilometers per second. (The accurate value is 299 792.458 km/s.) He came up with this finding after having noticed that Jupiter was casting its shadow on its moons progressively earlier when the Earth was nearer on the Jupiter’s orbit and progressively later when the Earth was remoter. He had thought that the light must have a finite velocity since the light- and, in effect, the shadow- from the giant planet was taking several minutes to reach the Earth as the Jupiter was drawing near on or far from the Earth’s orbit. James Bradley enabled to use the “aberration” or distortion of light to calculate such a speed.
Aberration
Bradley, in 1728, came to a realization that if a man is holding an umbrella during a rainy day, that man must slant or angle his umbrella in the direction in which he is walking. The faster he walks, the more he must angle the umbrella.
James Bradley applied this principle to know if whether the Earth was moving or not, since some authorities during those days were presuming that parallax (apparent displacement) of stars could not be detected because the Earth was not moving on its orbit (as declared by the Roman Catholic Church). So, if Earth was not moving, no apparent change in the position of the stars if he had angled his telescope and no aberration (deviation) of light. Moving light and moving observer could cause an aberration of light. But the result of his experiment was contrary to the purely belief of the then science & religious communities, because there was an aberration and this was due to the motion of the Earth -where he was observing from- and motion of the monitored light (from stars).
Striking Steel, Melting a Hole
Like rain, which is composed of particles or molecules, light is a shower of particles making an aberration when the telescope is slightly slanted. And like bullets, a high intensity light beam can make a hole bigger when fired to a metal plate.
Solar rays melt a metal
Raman Spectra or Compton Effect
With the Bragg’s technique, in 1923, Arthur H. Compton had discovered that some X rays were weakened (lengthening in layerlength or, conventionally, wavelength) by matter. After four years, this effect was noticed too by Sir Chandrasekhar on visible light. Theoretically, when such a quantum of photons struck an atom or sphere of beta-photons, some of the quantized photons are absorbed and partly caused to move the electron. Apparently, the momentum of a quantum is weakened as it is stricken an electron of a molecule.
Photoelectric Effect
Emission or projection of ionic electrons when hit by threshold keying quantized photons is because of unlocking beta-photons from attaching on the photoelectric substance’s atoms. As Einstein correctly theorized, only quantum with threshold, or higher, energy can move out an electron from an atom, and the kinetic energy of that escaping electron is dependent on the energy of the striking quantum. If the quantum’s energy is below the threshold, the electron (beta-photons) cannot be unlocked or fred. If above threshold, the escaping electron is more energetic than that with the threshold energy. Now, if two threshold-bearing quanta strikes the substance (e.g., zinc), two ionic electrons will be unlocked. Thus, the number of escaping electrons is dependent on the number of the impinging quanta. This phenomenon is an evidence that when proper quantized photons hit a photoelectric substance, an electron (beta-photons) will be unlocked and then ejected.
Quanta or Bundles of Energy
Based on traditional wave theory, an ideal wave may be characterized by an infinite spatial extension, leading to a belief that radiation is absorbed or emitted continuously (or in a gradual manner). Such an assumption predicts that if the ray’s intensity is graphed versus the frequency, the curve would continue to rise and show up off the grap. This was in contradictory with what is factual, for the intensity of radiation falls off toward the higher end of the so-called frequencies. To settle down this violet catastrophe of light, Max K.E.L. Planck tried it in 1900 by experimentation, and he discovered, rather, phenomenon that discredited the theory. Therefore he gave another explanation: radiation energy was not emitted or absorbed continuously but, rather, in a discontinuous or stepwise manner, he conceived it as occurring as bundles (which he called quanta). with this he could formulate
E = h v
that energy (E) is directly proportional to the product of a certain constant value (h, now known named after him) and frequency (v). Einstein and Bohr borrowed this equation to explain the photoelectric effect and atomic spectra, respectively.Redoña twisting ray
The bending of a light beam’s portion is not always in angled, straight path. It’s a natural event that a beam’s portion turns at certain degrees when sliding on any tip or edge. Such this sliding is a clear indication that the beam is particulate in nature. In prism, the internal edge is rectangular, while in magnifying lens or transparent sphere is circular. The external edge of a pinhole or small ball, like all of the mentioned edges, can slip or slide some portions of a hitting light beam and twist them at 180 degree. the Redoña twisting of light may lighten, circularly, the dark shadow of a small ball at certain distance. This bending of light is not because of waves, as claimed by wave proponents, but because of the sliding quanta when hitting a non-completely absorbing object’s edge.
This phenomenon can be best tested as illustrated below:
At certain distances and angles, the asteroid Q can cast its shadow on the edge of the Big-asteroid, on an outerspace observatory and on the planet Earth.
Why an inverted shadow is casting to the suppose direction of the Big-asteroid’s shadow? The reason is because when the quantized photons from the light source (e.g., Sun) hit the external edge of the Big-asteroid they slide on, stressed, and then twisted at 180° .
Of course this way of experimentation is too impractical to be done, but with this fact we can indirectly explain why a Nicol prism effect happens.
A portion of a light beam is slided and then twisted at certain degree when passing in a Nicol prism, while the other beam’s portion is properly aligned. This phenomenon is not because of the so-called light waves, but because of the particulate nature of light.
Refraction
Quantized photons are ideally massless. However, their mass can become externally detectable at some certain conditions and make them affected by a foreign object. For an instance, a light ray has constant velocity in a vacuum, but it decelerates when diagonally penetrates a rectangular transparent object (e.g., glass).
In a vacuum, all quanta have a uniform constant velocity. If that prismatically disturbed, the velocity of every quantum is decelerated. This refraction can be best understood not by assuming light as wave, but as particles changing in direction. Some books describe refraction as an analogy to a column of marching men that altered in direction and slowed down when it passed from a smooth parade ground to a rough field. Of course, the real reasons are not as simple as that.
Factually, very obvious that the certain transparent object’s contents, possibly the beta-photons, influence the quantized photons of light and vice versa.
Diffraction
Another indirect effect of refraction is the prismatic diffraction. In this phenomenon, a light beam when inside a prism refracts, then diffracts, and then turns at 180 degree, showing the layers of colorful light rays outside the prism invertedly.
The atomic balangawic region is usogamatically shown as gradual colors of rainbow by a prismatic diffraction. The violet layer usogamatically represents the deeper layer, while the red represents the upper portion of the balangawic. Color is but a prismatically decelerated visible light ray or a prismatically lengthened visible light’s quantum. The widest stretchability length (or traditionally wavelength) of any e-ray is 299 792 458 meters and a quantum with this layerlength ( λ ) is emitted from the atom.Like sound gaseous waves, light beam can be diffracted. If a beam of gaseous waves is composed of gaseous particles (molecules), then we have a strong conclusion that a light beam is also composed of particles, so that a beam (stream) is a beam of tinier particles. although wave proponents are subliminally teaching that beam or stream is not composed of much tinier particles, but as far as natural phenomenon is concerned, a beam of dust particles, of light, of atoms, of molecules, of electrons, or of ions is scientifically composed of particles.
Image Credits: Picture of melting metal: Joe Scherschel/Time Inc., Life Nature Library
Matter Waves and Mystical Waves
In quantum physics, wave or duality proponents are indirectly suggesting that water & sound waves are not composed of tinier particles; otherwise, they will prove that their waves are constituted of particles and, in effect, the requirement for a wave theory is only a decorative. Nevertheless, water waves are framed by and consisted of water particles, the H 2 O molecules.
These waves are factually made up of water particles
The Redoña test for this fact is a vessel with water or a closed container with a ringing bell inside. Small ripples or waves of water are formed traveling outyward from the portion whwere an abrupt tipping was striken on the water’s surface. We can notice a fact that true transverse waves cannot or do not deflect, diffract, or refract inward to the water or outward into the air. If we will remove water molecules from the vessel, certainly no waves can be shaped when we will throw a tiny rock in the vessel. Akin to this reasoning, no sound waves will be created inside an evacuated tightly closed container. The so-called sound waves (or properly sound formed consecutive expanding spheres) are composed of movable not solidified particles. sound is phonic disturbance on particles being passed by molecules, atoms, subatomic particles or quantized photons to another.
Waves are crests & troughs. Sound waves, however, are consecutive of concentric expanding spheres, in which the dilating sphere’s circumference is the supposed crest and the shallows before & after it are the troughs. It is termed the longitudinal (compressional) wave. Nonetheless, sound (or phonic disturbance) can be passed even without the gaseous waves, as in the case of electric sound traveling inside a solid conductor; the conductor does not need to be shaped into a wave to let pass the electric phonic disturbances. In fact it is the particles that carry the sound and not the wave.
Unlike water wave which travels as a single expanding flat, the sound wave travels as an expanding sphere or in volumic (three-dimensional) direction. Water wave, however, is the explicit example of physics’ wave by which we prove that its standing wave is consisted of tinier particles.
Another evidence that standing waves are composed of tinier particles is the scanning tunneling microscope microscope (STM) image shown below.
Standing waves of adatoms are factually seen in this quantum corral by IBM
For sure , without those particles there’s no such adatomic waves.
All examples of waves we have presented are nature-occurring waves and observable real matter waves.
There are, however, non-nature waves. the familiar example of hoax wave is the so-called visible light wave.
Even full of doubts and with uncertainty, that so-called light wave is believes on in the 2nd Scientific Revolution to be really existing. In the 1st Scientific Revolution “Huygens proposed that light consists not of particles but of waves” (The Book of Popular Science vol.9, p.65, Grolier, Inc. Canada, 1976). It was believed on that the entities making up light were waves. since all waves we have mentioned earlier are constituted of tinier particles, then the waves of Huygens were different and possibly not occurring in nature. light is believed to be consisted “of a wave motion in both an electric and magnetic field, which oscillate with the same frequency but at right angels to each other. The two fields also oscillate at right angles to the direction of travel ” (Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science,p.75, Chicago, 1987). At first glance to this description, we may imagine their wave as the image below.
Real perpendicular transverse so-called waves are at right angle to each other.
Mystical Waves of the 2nd Scientific Revolution
Picture of factual gold atoms are shown below:
As compared to the size of a factually photographed atom, DNA molecule, or virus, the so-called light wave is gigantic and yet no scientific photrograph or whatsoever. To try to resolve the dilemma, they understand particles and waves as behaviors (i.e., particles motion and wave motion, respectively). Notwithstanding even this definition leads to the question: Are the moving waves and particles not consisted of particles? The answer is, obviously, negative. Streams of particles and moving waves are both composed of particles
The so-called light waves have no trough or shallow portion because all of the wings are two-dimensional crests and the light waves could not exist in 3-dimensional expanding sphere without eliminating one plane or field of the wings. With this unsolvable dilemma, wave proponents are not trying to have a drawing of light waves as expanding spheres of electromagnetic radiation originating from an atom or source. It is impossible to make a sketch of light waves inside expanding spheres of radiation without destroying the theory.
To test: Draw a sphere, in the center of which is a smaller atom. From the atom radiates the mystical perpendicularly planes or fields of the light waves’ wings. Can you make these perpendicularly planed wings 3-dimensional inside that sphere?
Of course yes, but together with the doom of the wave theory.
Waves and Mysrtical Waves by Allan Poe Bona Redoña
Images credits: Water Waves (Joseph F. Alward PhD, Department of Physics, University of the Pacific);
Quantum Corral by IBM (Artists: M.F. Crommie, C.P. Lutz, & D.M. Eigler. Confinement of Electrons to Quantum Corrals on a Metal Surface. Science 262, 218-220, copyright 1983); Perpendicular transverse waves (drawing by Allan Poe B. Redona); Mystical Waves from an atom (drawing by APBR)
◄Previous……Next►
Magnification
The stretching of a light ray and the expansion of its front can be factually proved by letting it to pass through a magnifying glass at certain distance on a white paper inside a dark room. At certain angle, the ray will be seen performing the Redoña light twisting. As the degree of the lens’ angle is stepwisely reduced or added, the ray may be stretched while its front is widened. These properties have limitation.
In ordinary stretching, a light ray entering an atom may be expanded after leaving the atom, and we can probably calculate the expansion by the equation given in the image below.
Usogamation of magnification
Nevertheless, the phenomenon of magnification is primarily due to the stretchability & expandability of the light ray. In addition to such quanta’s capabilities, magnification is not nonsense because of the usogamation.
In usogamatics, 1 allenorfied by 1 is equal to 1 twicely saturated (or one saturated two) .
The base number in this mathematical system is the unit incidense, while the sub or subscripted number is the saturater.
The atoms that re-emit the original image do not multiply the image but, by usogamation, rather saturated or intensified it. Expanding the ray is nonsense if it is lesserly saturated because it become undetectable. Enough number of identical quanta is needed to detect or observe appreciably the image. This conjecture is validated by the fact that the more magnification in microscope, the lesser the intensity of or the dimmer the background light ray, and the fact that the reflecting telescope is more useful if it can collect more saturating quanta from celestial object.
Every atom in the lens which re-emits, or in the mirror that reflects, the image is functioning as a saturation contributor. (The difference between the quanta of re-emission here and reflection is that the former are twisting at 180 degrees, while the latter are propagating upside down.)
Nevertheless, even if the number of atom that re-emit is zillion, the image will remain one & the same by the usogamation; and the threshold sensitivity of our eye’s photoreceptors neccessatates the enough quantity of quantum.
Therefore, stretching the quanta (or expanding the light ray) is not satisfying; to be noticeable, there must be enough quantity of the usogamatically stretched quanta.
◄Previous……Next►
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)