Experiment: QM fails, CM succeeds

[ajb]

It seemed to me that quantum mechanics can't predict the experiment in this thread because it's nothing close to the atomic world.

Indeed, the experiment you describe seems classical and classical electrodynamics will give good results.

 

I'm saying classical mechanics can predict all known experiments, and can derive all known equations.

Not true. Can you classically get the spectrum of the hydrogen atom without quantum mechanics? Can you understand superconductivity without quantum mechanics? Can you understand superfluids without quantum mechanics?

 

For example classical mechanics derives the Compton scattering equation, so according to academic community classical mechanics correctly predicts Compton scattering experiments.

Yes, we know this. There are semi-classical derivations of many results.

 

 

QED is not predicting certain experiments.

Again, in principal or is this just a practical thing?

 

There's a company that for over three years has shown QED cannot correctly predict experiments of extremely ionized atoms.

QED is normally formulated as a pertubative theory. This means it will be okay provided things are not interacting too strongly. I can well imagine situations where this approach to QED fails and one needs to look at non-perturbative methods.

 

Anyway, can you please give a citation here.

[Theoretical]

@ajb

 

"For a lot of situations you can forget the corrections due to QED, not always though. For example you get a reasonable agreement of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom using the Schrödinger equation. You get a bit better agreement using the Dirac equation, but there is something that this relativistic improvement does not answer; the Lamb shift."

 

Simple, just to recalibrate QED lol. That's what they're proposing to do given the incorrect predictions QED makes on extremely ionized atoms. As for QM, just renormalize it haha. Feynman hated renormalize.

[ajb]

That's what they're proposing to do given the incorrect predictions QED makes on extremely ionized atoms.

The problem is that one usually has to make lots of approximations and simplifying assumptions to get any kind of answer from quite complicated systems, such as an ionised atom. You have lots of interactions between the nucleus, the electrons and the electrons themselves. This is going to be a hard problem to model.

 

However, technical difficulties in applying the theory to practical situations should be seen as separate from the question of the validity of the theory as a theory of the EM field and charges. I would imagine that every physicists expects that it is in principle possible to describe the spectra of atoms beyond the hydrogen atom very well using the full theory of QED. However technicalities makes this impossible to actually realise.

[Theoretical]

Yes I'm saying classical mechanics can get those. I say that with confidence because so far I've been able to get it to derive all of the big ones so far from Compton scattering to blackbody radiation. In due time.

 

No you're not understating me. there are no known semi classical mechanical ways of deriving compton scattering equation from classical mechanics. Mine will be the first.

 

Not sure what you mean by in principle or practice. I am merely saying there are years of experiments at this facility which is ionizing atoms to extreme amount, which gives results QED does not.

 

Sure, here's some sources:

 

The NIST experiment. "The most energetic photons from electron transitions in helium have energies of around 39 electron volts.The photon energy scales as Z2, so analogous photons observed in the helium-like atoms witha nuclear charge of Z=22, should have energies that are (22/2)2=121 times higher.The most energetic photons from the helium-like atoms, studied with high precision bent-crystal spectroscopy, have energies around 4,750 electron volts, which is in the soft x-ray region.The energy vs. Z of the most energetic photons from these studies of helium-like atoms were compared with the predictions of quantum electrodynamics, a part of the Standard Model that, up to now, has had an essentially unblemished record in predicting the results of experimental measurements.It was found that the data are systematically larger in energy than the 3-body QED predictions by about 0.1 to 0.6 electron-volts, depending on the value of Z.Further, the deviations in the heavier high-Z helium-like atoms appear to grow as Z3.The reported discrepancy with QED has a statistical significance of about 5 standard deviations. Thus, QED, a central and highly trusted component of the Standard Model, seems to be failing in a very fundamental and consistent way."

 

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw167.html

 

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/ebit-112712.cfm

[ajb]

Yes I'm saying classical mechanics can get those.

Well, good luck.

 

No you're not understating me. there are no known semi classical mechanical ways of deriving compton scattering equation from classical mechanics. Mine will be the first.

Schrödinger in 1927 did that, Ann. Phys. 28 257-64.

 

Others have done similar things since.

 

Not sure what you mean by in principle or practice.

Calculations can be very hard and even impossible to do in closed form. You have to move to various approximations, limits, other simplifying assumptions and so on.

 

While one may expect a theory to give a good description of some experiment, it may not be so easy to preform the calculations to compare with the experiment. Even then you may have to resort to numerical methods.

 

This is for sure one of the problems of quantum chemistry and QFT outside of perturbation theory.

 

I am merely saying there are years of experiments at this facility which is ionizing atoms to extreme amount, which gives results QED does not.

This is interesting, but one would have to read their claims carefully. Can you point to a peer-review paper on the subject? They will make clearer statements that just on their website.

[Theoretical]

Schrödinger in 1927 did that, Ann. Phys. 28 257-64.

No my friend lol. Schrödinger used Quantum Mechanics to derive compton scattering. First he used de Broglie wave, which had problems. Then later on the dirac relativistic form. Nobody has used been able to use classical electroddynamics to derive Compton skin, until now.

skin=scattering

 

Contact NIST. I planned on contacting them as well sometime.

[ajb]

No my friend lol. Schrödinger used Quantum Mechanics to derive compton scattering.

You think you can get this completely classically? I doubt it.

 

For one thing, if your formula are completely classical then h can never appear. Any formula that you derive, however you derive that has h in it has quantum somewhere. Thus, almost by definition you cannot recover any quantum mechanics results that explicitly contain h. Thus, you will not be able to recover lots of the things you have claimed to be able to do, not without some 'fudging' by adding h.

 

 

 

I also had a quick look at the problem of highly ionised atoms. It seems to me the basic trouble is with the methods used to derive the predictions. Bound stated in QED are not so easy to handle and so it is difficult to make the necessary calculations. I expect the discrepancy with experiment and theory to decrease as people work harder in these sort of calculations.

[Klaynos]

ajb, you must remember that he thinks it's completely classical if you assume photons... It's just wrong.

[ajb]

ajb, you must remember that he thinks it's completely classical if you assume photons... It's just wrong.

So that is what I am missing!

 

You could try plane waves or something, but still I can't see where h would come from.

[Theoretical]

You think you can get this completely classically? I doubt it.

 

For one thing, if your formula are completely classical then h can never appear. Any formula that you derive, however you derive that has h in it has quantum somewhere. Thus, almost by definition you cannot recover any quantum mechanics results that explicitly contain h. Thus, you will not be able to recover lots of the things you have claimed to be able to do, not without some 'fudging' by adding h.

 

.

Ug, you still don't get it. The classical equation needs to know the intensity of the electromagnetism, just like any other equation needs to know. It doesn't matter if you plug in 7 million joulse per wavelength or hf or whatever. It will give he saying calculated results as quantum mechanics equation. Got it?

 

As for the QED NIST issue, I would highly recommend you contact them because they know the experiments inside and out, while you do not. They said QED needs to be recalibrated.

[studiot]

I think the claims are getting more outlandish and Walter Mitty by the post,

 

But there is still no solid pudding to prove (digest) or even discuss.

 

Heaviside is spinning rapidly in his grave.

Edited August 26, 2015 by studiot

[Theoretical]

I think the claims are getting more outlandish and Walter Mitty by the post,

 

But there is still no solid pudding to prove (digest) or even discuss.

 

Heaviside is spinning rapidly in his grave.

I have already proven mathematically classical mechanics correctly to derives the momentum for electromagnetism.

[Klaynos]

I have already proven mathematically classical mechanics correctly to derives the momentum for electromagnetism.

As shown in the closed thread this isn't true. I'm pretty sure you were told not to reintroduce that topic.

[Theoretical]

As shown in the closed thread this isn't true. I'm pretty sure you were told not to reintroduce that topic.

Prove it! Ask me what the momentum of emr is for whatever amount of energy is absorbed per wavelength. Go for it. Pretty funny how the classical prediction is exactly the QM.

 

... Nobody ever told me what I can and can't discuss. That's blatant suppression of truth.

 

And nobody here is going to put this fire out. Pretty obvious is what's happening.

[studiot]

Do you even know who Heaviside was or what he did?

[Theoretical]

This is a thread about QM versus CM. Let's stick to the topic. I'm not going to spend much more time here asking and asking and asking to challenge my equation. If you think it's an inner, go for it, plug in any value of emr energy absorbed and let's see if he gets the correct predicted cute quantum mechanics value. I have already done that countless times. It works.

iPhone dictation corrections:

he=it

cute=correct

 

 

Again the derived equation of photon momentum from classical mechanics. People complained about the unitless conversion because they don't understand what it is, so here's equation without the conversion, which means you need to plug in the amount of absorbed emr energy in order to calculate the momentum. To do that you set you V, voltage, so that V^2/R equals the absorbed emr energy per wavelength.

 

Photon/light momentum:

 

V=v*B*L

Solve for B, substitute v for c:

B=V/L/c

 

F=I*L*B

I=V/R

F=(V/R)*L*B

Scale to one photon per wavelength:

F=(V/R)*L*B

Substitute B for V/L/c

F=(V/R)*L*(V/L/c) * ((h*f^2)/(V^2/R))

Reduces to:

F=h*f*(f/c)

F=h*f/λ

p=F*s

One photon of energy takes 1/f seconds:

p=(h*f/λ) * (1/f)

p=h/λ

 

c=speed of light

f=frequency

h=Planck constant

v=velocity

p=momentum

 

Receiving antenna:

V=voltage caused by B-field

B=B-field

I=current caused by B-field

R=resistance

L=length of receiving antenna

F=resulting forward force

r=distance away from dipole

 

The above is derived from macro scale antenna. I've also derived it from a charge, such as an electron. Classical mechanics gets the same equation.

[Klaynos]

Prove it!

If suggest you reread the contents here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90596-classical-mathematical-derivation-of-photon-momentum/page-2

 

You're right though you were not told to not reintroduce the same topic. You appear to have learnt nothing from that thread closure.

Again the qm assumption is in "scale to one photon..." Ignore this if you like you still will be wrong.

[Theoretical]

Why not test the equation, rather than all this nonsense. People in that thread were asking ridiculous questions such as saying it's wrong because the circuit is shorting. It's a freaking dipole in Tenna with radiation resistance. It's not shorted. Nonsense. Why should I have to answer those type of questions. Instead, they decide to close the thread, probably because it's obviously correct and they feel threatened.

iPhone dictation correction:

in Tenna=antenna

[studiot]

 

Wikipedia

 

The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics. Published in 1900, it originally described the proportionality constant between the energy, E, of a charged atomic oscillator in the wall of a black body, and the frequency, ν, of its associated electromagnetic wave. Its relevance is now integral to the field of quantum mechanics, describing the relationship between energy and frequency, known as the Planck–Einstein relation:

In 1905 the value E, the energy of a charged atomic oscillator, was theoretically associated with the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself, representing the minimum amount of energy required to form an electromagnetic field (a "quantum"). Further investigation of quanta revealed behaviour associated with an independent unit ("particle") as opposed to an electromagnetic wave and was eventually given the term photon. The Planck–Einstein relation now describes the energy of each photon in terms of the photon's frequency. This energy is extremely small in terms of ordinary experience.

Since the frequency ν, wavelength λ, and speed of light c are related by λν = c, the Planck–Einstein relation for a photon can also be expressed as

The above equation leads to another relationship involving the Planck constant. Given p for the linear momentum of a particle (not only a photon, but other particles as well), the de Broglie wavelength λ of the particle is given by

 

 

Are you claiming to have derived the equation at the bottom of the quote by yourself?

[Theoretical]

 

 

Are you claiming to have derived the equation at the bottom of the quote by yourself?

Again, my claim is very clear, that classical mechanics correctly predicts the amount of momentum that EMR produces. If you ask the equation how much the momentum is if hf joules per wavelength is absorbed then the equation says h/wavelength. What is so difficult to understand about that. The equation uses classical electrodynamics to predict the correct amount of momentum.

[studiot]

 

The equation uses classical electrodynamics to predict the correct amount of momentum.

 

 

Classical electrodynamics does not attempt to apply a force to massless particles.

 

Let us work through this so called proof of yours and see if you have carried it out correctly.

 

 

F=I*L*B

 

 

F is the force on what, given by whose law?

[Theoretical]

Classical mechanics does not state that light is made of massless particles. My radio and visible light experiments prove there is no single quantize massless particle call the photon.

 

That equation is well known. See this page

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/forwir2.html

[studiot]

 

That equation is well known. See this page

http://hyperphysics....ic/forwir2.html

 

 

I asked a simple question and the rules require a simple, but complete answer within the thread.

 

So I will ask it again.

 

You are the one claiming there is a force so I ask again

 

F is the force on what ....?

 

Edited August 26, 2015 by studiot

[Theoretical]

 

I asked a simple question and the rules require a simple, but complete answer within the thread.

 

So I will ask it again.

 

You are the one claiming there is a force so I ask again

 

It's called the Lorentz force. See "Force on a current-carrying wire"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

 

The force is acting on the electric current.

[studiot]

OK so F acts on an electric charge. that is in accordance with Lorenz.

 

Where is this charge coming from and going to that it forms a current?

Edited August 26, 2015 by studiot