The expression <i>E</i> = <i>h</i> × <i>f</i> is misleading because it implies the distribution of a photon quantum over 299 792 458 m, while the expression <i>E</i> = (<i>h</i> × <i>c</i>)/<i>λ</i> enables us to explain the particle-wave duality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two equations E = h × f and E = ( h × c )/ λ for the quantum of energy of electromagnetic radiation provide the same result but describe electromagnetic radiation very differently. E = ( h × c )/ λ describes the quantum of energy of electromagnetic radiation to be located already in one wavelength and therefore like a particle. E = h × f describes the quantum of energy distributed over 299 792 458 m and therefore like a wave. To obtain h × f for the quantum of energy, we have to refer the quantum of energy to 299 792 458 m. Only then we obtain from E = ( h × c )/(299 792 458 m), as the distance of 299 792 458 m of the velocity c is cancelling out now, E = h × 1/s = h × Hz, which is the precondition to obtain the correct value for the quantum of energy by multiplying Planck’s constant h by the frequency f . This already indicates the necessity of today's physics to have to speak of a particle-wave duality. It turns out that electromagnetic radiation consists of the first wavelength that carries the quantum of energy and behaves like a particle, which today is called “photon,” and a few following wavelengths that do not carry a further quantum of energy and behave like a wave, which today is called “electromagnetic wave.” By this knowledge, the particle-wave duality vanishes, and we obtain one single physical phenomenon, which I call “photon-wave.” The strange behavior of quantum objects at a single slit, at double-slits, and at beam splitters can now be understood in a causal way. “God does not play dice!” Einstein was right.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".