martillo

I understand. My intention was to give an idea of what I'm talking about but I understand.

Yes I know. Mine is a new one challenging that yet needing to be tested the same way or harder.

I agree. That's only an analogy with a structure that could in principle be in agreement with the "wave-particle duality" concept. It is not a given structure for light or any particle. For all of you to have an idea of what I'm talking about, the special structure I gave for a photon is basically a pair of rings of current, one positively charged, the other negatively charged and travelling together at an equilibrium distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. They also have a protective shield around which acts in the case of collisions with other particles. The diffraction behavior is explained then as in the "Photons diffraction" pdf file I have attached. Photons diffraction.pdf

I'm very satisfied to have found a particle structure for the photon that explains the wave-like behavior... What it is for you then?

Any case the thing must be reviewed... Which concepts would you suggest?

Particularly here? Light, a particle or a wave? Cannot be both at the same time. What needs to be found is a solution to the weird duality. I have worked a solution for the particle model of light with a special structure for the photon (the photon as an "electromagnetic particle") which explains its wave-like behavior. It also works for electrons with a compatible structure for them. I'm an electrical engineer, I think it deserves an análisis by physicists but many things need to be questioned, reviewed, and re-solved in a different way. Is not so easy but it can be done. I have found a solution to many things, others remains to be solved. A start-point is needed and that is what I have, a start-point a good start-point I think. I try to show it sometimes but gets hard, too hard sometimes...

Got it. You know, too hard to explain myself… Better to not post anymore. Thanks for your comments anyway.

I will think in a way to show my approach… May be I could upload some things as attached pdfs… Give me some time... By the way let me say I disagree with your comment "However, there is nothing that needs to be "solved". ". One thing to be solved is the subject of this thread, the "wave-particle duality" concept. As I said in a previous post you might have not read: "Making an analogy that concept is like to say in Biology that a being was found that sometimes behaves like a fly, sometimes like a whale, and to stay with that concept without asking anything else... ". Sorry but I cannot just stay with that concept in mind and I think many others also won't. Other thing would be "dark matter". Something necessary to match General Relativity Theory with the dynamics of galaxies as observed in the telescopes but something that hasn't been experimentally detected anyway. Same thing happening with the "virtual particles" transmitting forces in Quantum Physics… I mean, Physics is not a "closed case"...

That I'm an schizophrenic (true by the way) "out of the box" one which has found some amazing truths...

The "wave-particle duality" concept for instance. The topic of this thread. Making an analogy that concept is like to say in Biology that a being was found that sometimes behaves like a fly, sometimes like a whale, and to stay with that concept without asking anything else... I do that everyday...

Thanks for the comment but that way will not work. You know, to solve the things you must question everything. I mean question "Quantum Physics" Theory, Relativity Theory, the "Standard Model" of elementary particles, the "electromagnetic waves" existence, the classical definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields and even new interpretations must be given in the results of well known experiments. Where do you think I could present something like that?

jajrussel: For me the "wave-particle duality" concept is just the top of the iceberg of the not well solved things in Physics. Something only an schizophrenic "out of the box" one could solve. I think I'm the one. I think I did it. But with the forum's rules to not post links to personal pages and to not promote any book or something like that impossible to show you my approach. Just to have an idea about, a structure must be given to the elementary particles and that is only the beginning... Impossible to explain just posting. 🤷‍♂️ Some day my manuscript will fall in the right hands, someday...

Brilliant definition. Right conclusion. Not any like. Just silence. I don't care. I'm costumed. In my daily life is the same. It has been the same all time.

NOTE: It must be pointed out that what is presented here is just a simple diagram of the concept of a "Fully Hydraulic Motor" and it may be many improvements must be made to put it to work fine. For instance, the diaphragm could be wider than the combustion piston, a pressure stabilization mechanism would be needed as pointed out by OLDChemeE, a mechanic coupling of the pistons could improve stability, other hydraulic mechanism could improve vehicles' braking, ignition and combustible injection should be developed, special wheels' turbines with mobile blades must be developed, etc, etc. The aim here is to present the concept for it to be developed further by anyone interested...

The wheels' turbines would have blades with variable angles. That would be equivalent to the transmission box. At angle 0 the fluid pass trough without producing force in the shaft. At some angle it will produced maximum rotation of the shafts and so the wheels. About pulsations I think some pressure absorbing dispositive like a chamber with piston and spring could diminish them. That is not shown in the diagram for simplicity. You edited your post but I think this one well answers it. If not just make me know.

Well, no crankshaft, no flywheel, no clutch, no transmission box, no differential… I think it would be much more simple to fabricate and maintain and also be much lighter…

"Fully Hydraulic" because there's only hydraulic fluid from the combustion pistons to the wheels' turbines and all the mechanical parts of a conventional vehicle are replaced by the "hydraulic rectifier" and the mobile shafts of the turbines. It continues to be a combustion motor. I think it could be gasoline (2T or 4T) or diesel. Cooling of the diaphragm is necessary to not burn with the heat coming from the pistons. While one of the pistons descends the other ascends and reciprocally. The hydraulic fluid makes that.

I have developed a totally innovative "Fully Hydraulic Motor" which I submitted to an automotive company and local university lot of years ago. Not any feedback received on it so I post it here for if someone in the world could be interested. I´m not interested in the production patent rights, may be just to be mentioned as the original author of the concept. It is based on an electronical concept applied in hydraulics. Here is the two pages pdf I wrote to present it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J_LnpLlhbFTY-wPqEOk2G5z7545BB674/view?usp=sharing Any comment is welcome.

The problem is how to define a Field of a Force over an elementary Particle in a formal way. I think I have a right definition. For a general concept valid for Electric and Magnetic Fields it would be: "The Field is the mathematical abstraction that represent the Force that would eventually act over an elementary Particle of unity charge (q=1) and unity velocity (v=1) if it would exist in a specific position of the space." To complete the concept I consider the elementary Particles as sources of the Forces. So, elementary Particles exist in the space and each one being a source of Forces that act over the other Particles. I think the concept of Forces is strongly related to the concept of Particles. I don't understand how Forces could exist between Waves. Waves present interference between themselves but Forces? I don't know how that could be...

It s said "Dark Matter" occupies about 90% of the Universe. If it was dark we would see quite nothing from the Universe in telescopes. We wouldn't see stars nor galaxies. Actually it should be "Transparent Matter"!

Thanks for your contribution studiot. I'm correcting the manuscript for my book and my site now. That's what the new theory needs now, constructive critics.

Right, you are right. I must work better on this, I made a mistake there. ve is the velocity of the expelled fuel relative to the rocket. I agree. Working on the derivation of the thrust equation for rockets I cannot make such mistake. But the rest including the initial post is right. The real general equation for force is F = ma (valid even for variable mass) and not F = dp/dt (which becomes valid for constant mass only).

You don't see but it is wrote and not by me but the entire world of rockets dynamics??? How is that? In vain to explain if you actually don't want to see.

Well I think that actually the case is exactly the inverse: F = ma valid for the general case even when mass varies. F = dp/dt valid for constant mass only. Rockets' dynamics shows me right. Relativity Theory wrong.

I agree with everything here. The issue is that F = ma is not the same as F = dp/dt. Experimentally, in rockets dynamics, is proven that the relation F = ma = mdv/dt is valid even for a mass varying systems. But Relativity largely uses and depends on the relation F = dp/dt. They are different relations. The issue is which definition would be given for force in the most general case, F = ma or F = dp/dt? Just mathematically can be derived the following: By definition p = mv Then: dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt = ma + vdm/dt Now, for me, the true relation for force is F = ma and the equation for momentum and force can be written as: dp/dt = F + vdm/dt It can be seen that F = dp/dt is valid only in the cases where dm/dt = 0 which means cases or systems with constant mass but it is not the case for the rockets nor for relativistic systems! I conclude then that Relativity Theory fails assuming generally F = dp/dt. I conclude Relativity Theory a wrong theory.