Theoretical

What do you think of this experiment. They did two experiments. The experiment I'm interested in is regarding gravitational time dilation where the optical atomic clock slows down when slightly raised. The only questionable part is where do they take into account the fact that objects higher in elevation rotate faster. My iPhone calculator doesn't have enough precision, so I'll have to do it on my desktop some day to see if their results can be explained by velocity rather then gravitation. An improved experiment would be to move the higher elevated object at an appropriate speed against earths rotation so that it is moving at the scene speed when the clock was lower.

 

http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

 

I'm trying to see this through the time dilation equation, which says time slows down from an outside observer's perspective when an object gets closer to a massive object. Therefore, if the clicks per second decrease as measured by the observer, and the distance between the mirrors contracts, then how is that the same speed?

 

The only explanation I see is that the outside observer will not detect any change in the clicks per second.

 

Thanks. I see our post have crossed. I'll analyze your previous post.

 

Ah, i'm referring to *gravitational* time dilation and length contraction. Perhaps that's the difference we're seeing here?

t=tf*sqrt(1 - 2*G*M/(r*c^2))

d=ds*srqt(1 − 2*G*M/(r*c^2))

 

The only explanation I can come up with is that the far away observer will detect the same amount of clicks per second from the mirror device regardless of how close the mirror device is to the massive object. Do you think that's the answer?

The units are measured by coordinates

(x,y,z,ct) GR involves coordinate changes. So Alice and Bob each measure the speed of light using what what he perceives as the units of measure. They will each measure the same speed.

Great, but that doesn't answer my original question. See the mirror example.

Hint what are the units for the speed of light?

Meters / second. I don't see the hint.

 

Hint what are the units for the speed of light? The length of the meter changes and the measurements of a second changes. So each observer still measures the same speed. Its the units that change not the quantity. Though we can measure the change in wavelength ie redshift.

The equation says time slows down. That would mean light must take longer for each reflection. How are you seeing it?

 

Yes, A person that is next to the mirror would of course detect the same amount of time since his detectors would also slow down, but we are talking about a far away observer.

 

Could the missing piece of this puzzle be the effect of leaving such a massive body?

 

One thing we can probably agree that's incorrect is an increasing out of sync with the mirror device.

No?

Essentially correct. If you look at the clocks on that link and when the red signal is sent you can see both aspects affected. It's great to try to mathematically seperate each effect but all the effects occur. Dilation, delay in signal and contraction. If you think about that the observer sees all three. Regardless of who the observer is Alice or Bob observing their opposite signal.

Interesting. That creates an even bigger problem for me. Let's say the outside observer is watching the mirror device through a telescope. Each time the light reflects off one of the mirrors, the mirror device produces a bright flash of light for the observer. So as the mirror device remains stationary near the massive object, we are say the observer is detecting only one flash every two seconds, but that's impossible since it means light would have to be traveling slower in order to do that. As stated previously, the observer is becoming increasingly out of sync with the mirror device. So then what happens if the mirror device remains stationary near the massive object for an appreciably long period of time such that the observers out of sync time because so great that the mirror device could travel to the observer is less time? In other words, the mirror device would have traveled to the observer, but the observer would not yet have seen all of the clicks yet.

Thanks. So I gather that applies to the time between the clicks as well. When the mirror device is away from the massive object, let's say the outside observer detects 1 click every second. When the mirror device is close to the massive object, the outside observer detects 1 click every two seconds. What is the outside observer to think of this? He might be inclined to think that either the spacing between the mirrors increased or the light is traveling slower, or both. But what is happening is that the observer's reference to time becomes increasingly out of sync with the mirror device with each click? When the mirror device is near the massive object the observer detects a click at t=0, t=2, t=4, t=6..., but in reality the clicks occurred at t=x, t=x+1, t=x+2, t=x+3?

Maybe someone proficient in Relativity can point out what I'm missing here. According to the equations, time slows down when closer to a massive object. That's from an outsiders perspective since time doesn't change from ones own perspective. Also there's a length contraction closer to a massive object.

 

I haven't found any solid answers regarding any possible change in the speed of light when closer to a massive object. I believe an outside observer sees no change in the speed of light, or does it. So then how is the following example explained. We have light bouncing back and forth between two mirrors. Each time the light reflects there's a click being broadcast so that an observer from a distant location can observe the clicks per second. So time slows down when the mirror device is placed near a massive planet. This means the observer who is far away detects less clicks per second. How is this possible if light is traveling at the same speed unless the mirrors are farther apart? But the mirrors aren't farther apart. According to relativity the mirrors are closer together due to length contraction. So how can the device be producing less clicks per second unless the speed of light decreased? I'm missing something here.

 

BTW there are some discussions on length contraction near a massive object, but there are contradictory posts if the contraction occurs on every axises.

As stated before, deriving the equation for one hf is to show that the classical mechanics derives the same amount of momentum as p = h / λ equation. It's just as easy to derive it in raw joule units, 1J, but nobody would recognize it. All that matters is if CM predicts the correct amount of momentum for a given amount of absorbed energy.

 

As for E=hf, in the video I will present evidence that it's merely the energy of *one* decaying emr burst commonly emitted by an electron in an atom, but that's not a universal law. It can be 1/2 hf, or 2.79764E-79*hf. E=hf represents *one* photon. Use E=n*h*f otherwise.

 

BTW in the video I will derive Planck's constant, h, from 100% Classical Mechanics. You'll see what h truly means.

 

ps, will that be still be considered theoretical?

Well classical mechanics is not theoretical, but what I've done with CM is unknown so far. Therefore some may call it theoretical. The mechanics is straightforward from my point of view, but of course I spent a long time analyzing it. So I think a classroom type video presentation of the CM photon momentum and a whole lot more will make things very clear for everyone.

 

One disagreement we have is that h*f is quantized. My radio and visible wavelength experiments, which will be in the video, will offer extremely strong evidence the single quantized photon is not what everyone thinks it is. One can call that theoretical if they wish, but in all honesty I can't, given the amount of time spent on experiments and math.

 

There are preachers peddling this on a lot of streetcorners, but whenever it comes down to substance, all we get is "I already proved it" (except that you won't address criticisms) or "I'll post a video". No other response to critiques.

 

People use QM because it works in the relevant areas of physics. That's the same reason they use classical mechanics.

Blatant lies. All I require is someone who knows classical electrodynamics in order and to hold a conversation because I'm not here to teach anyone classical mechanics. I addressed the hf question dozens of times. STOP LYING!

This is ridiculous. It's classical mechanics! It's been proven for hundreds of years to work on the macro scale, and oh how funny it works on the microscopic scale as well. Insane what a few scientists did, people such as RayleighJeans who enter an INFINITE amount of energy to derive blackbody radiation equation. Absolutely unbelievable.

 

Like I've said. Classical mechanics never failed anyone. We failed classical mechanics.

 

 

At the risk of getting off topic... for example the photon momentum thing. It did not look like a mathematical mistake, but it was impossible to follow the physical reasoning. You set v=c and then pulled E = hf out without giving any proper explanation. The bottom line is that even if the mathematics works, it is not at all clear you presented a reasonable physical argument. I hope you see the difference here.

 

Is everyone reading this? So you're saying it looks like I did not make a math error. Then the equation clearly derived from classical mechanics predicts photon momentum. And your issue is the E=hf. But like I said, instead of hf, it can be derived from one joule of energy instead. The point is, the equation gets the correct prediction for photon momentum. As for deriving h, plancks constant, from classical mechanics that's for another topic. BTW QM never derived h. It's derived from experiments. So if I derive h from purely classical electrodynamics, ... BOOM

 

I remember at least fifty people like you who said that ten years ago. The ego on you people is truly amazing. It's so clear to everyone else that your adamant stance isn't the product of rational thought. You have such an emotional investment in your idea that you're lovestruck, blinded by the light of your own imagined brilliance.

 

And you can't admit all this work you've done is for nothing. That's always going to be a problem for you. Sorry, I truly am. Nobody has anything against you personally. We're just... sad, that a mind is being wasted for nothing.

Or maybe you're just delusional. "Oh gee I've met a 97 people like you." Too bad you can't find any error in my math. I ask, you people blur out some vague thing which is often a blatant lie, I respond asking you to be specific, and no response. ...And you think you're the intelligent one?

 

and pretty funny how numerical antenna analysis software gets correct results for photon momentum lol. Ah, just stroke of luck, right? You know damn well there are no errors in my math. Makes one wonder what your intent is.

 

Then what is the problem?

Ask the admins lol.

Anyway, it was very nice. We should love even people with who we disagree.

Suuuure! I can just feel this love here lol.

 

When you're just a big puddle of wrong, we'll still love you.

Yeah it must really SUCK your quantum religion will be taken down by classical mechanics.

 

Talking about an ego crusher lmao. No wonder you people are taking extremes to suppress it.

 

It'll take you people a decade to regain the publics confidence again. let's just hope they don't all flock over to the religions again.

Lots of big egos, but not so much tied up in being right by virtue of having worked on something for a long time. They have big egos (in part) because they are usually right.

Then there's going to be an ego meltdown in academic science community over the next few years.

Perhaps not having your ego tied up so much in the idea would help. But if that's not possible, you'll just have to suffer a little bit of being insulted.

Ego lol. Try looking at academic community and you'll see the biggest ego ever.

We describe what we mean by speculation. Basically if it's not mainstream physics, most likely it's speculation.

Then you admins better get to work because you have thousand of posts to delete. It's so obvious to see the blatant biased opinions of the admin's at work at this forum.

Thus, theoretical physics can be discussed in any of the physics sub-sections.

Yeah that's the way it should be, but if you're on their irritation list because your theoretical work completely disagrees with what they believe then you'll be lucky to not get banned from the site for merely mentioning your work. This is in reference to theoretical work that is based on experiments and mathematics.

 

BTW I may not see the replies here since the admins stripped my email alert notification feature. :/

That's the way it's been four months. Yes the email notification options are selected in my settings.

It would be very nice if you would add a Theoretical Work section in the Physics section. Posting theoretical work that is based on experiments and math in the "Speculation" section is just wrong. Everything is speculation. In 1 million years from now, if humanity survives, all present science will be laughable.

 

Putting one's life work that they have worked extremely hard and long on in the speculation area is just insulting.

 

Thanks!!

 

ps, it's called theoretical work, not speculation work lol.

Just so Jon G doesn't think there is anything to it, what Theoretical did was to use the results predicted by QM to produce the same results as QM. Not terribly interesting.

What a blatant lie. I used classical mechanics equations. Once again I ask you, show the errors, show proof. Be specific. You can't because you're all you're doing here is putting out fires to suppress truth.

"If the system was in a single state beforehand, then you would get different results from what we see in some experiments."

 

I don't understand why the results would be different. If the single state were to be the same as that which the wavefunction is assumed to collapse into, why would the results of a measurement be different? I would be grateful if you could indicate which experiments can only be explained on the basis of a collapsing wavefunction.

Please see one of my first threads started at this form. I've proven 100% with very simple mathematics that classical mechanics clearly predicts the Bell test experiment. Nobody found errors in my math. The admin closed the thread and said I kind of admitted to error, but that is deceptive. At one point in the thread the only thing I even hinted being wrong was the idea of a hidden variable, but that is a quantum mechanics debate that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that classical mechanics clearly predicts the correct outcome of the Bell test experiment.

 

Yes, I used to buy into quantum mechanics, until I started deriving everything using classical mechanics; e.g., photon momentum, compton scattering, bells test experiment, photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, the atomic world... In fact, classical mechanics predicts a second electromagnetic wave is emitted from compton scattering that has twice the compton scattering frequency. This emr is twice the frequency, but *extremely* weak. Hopefully soon this will be confirmed, putting classical mechanics back where it belongs.

 

Classical mechanics never failed anyone. We failed classical mechanics. Einstein's intuition was correct.

 

I don't think that's strange. How does that work, otherwise? 'Lets go and understand EVERYTHING in 150 years.' Yeah, right.

This explains what's generally included in ToE:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything

 

 

Addition: one of my own great dislikes for Quantum Mechanics is renormalization. Feynman, among a lot of well-known scientists including Dirac were huge critic against renormalization. Dirac said he was very dissatisfied with renormalization. Feynman wrote the following in 1985:

 

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

 

Of course that's regarding QFT, which in an informal sense is an extension of quantum mechanics.

Incompatible with Relativity.

 

Incorrect prediction of the Higgs boson mass.

 

Failure to determine the YangMills theory with a finite mass gap exist.

 

Lot of unanswered questions regarding cosmic inflation.

 

Horizon problem.

 

Electroweak horizon problem.

 

Quantum gravity.

 

No explanation for the baryon asymmetry.

 

Cosmological constant problem.

 

Foundational problems.

 

No unification of particles and forces.

 

Inability to give rise to reality, such as the superposition of states, wavefunction collapse, quantum decoherence, what constitutes a measurement.

 

Vacuum catastrophe.

 

The tuning problem. How the values of the free constants are chosen in nature.

 

After ~150 years, still no ToE, theory of everything.

This is an important thread so students and others are not misled. People say I'm stirring the pot. Well, the pot needs to be stirred because there's some poison roaming around at the bottom.

 

Username "Mordred" recommended the following experiment, which needs emphasis so students and 8 to 5ers aren't misled:

 

Mordred, on 28 Aug 2015 - 12:12 AM, "said:

Here is some tests you can do at home.

http://www.google.ca...ekIT1oDkWgJVGxg"

 

As a side note, please question everything you read here, including all of the math I've posted, which BTW nobody has shown any errors. In my previous thread a user who supposedly has a PhD said force equals voltage, and the user Mordred recommended a photoelectric experiment which doesn't even contain the correct Planck's constant.

 

Anyhow, it is very important to know that academic science community has long since proven the photoelectric effect works perfectly well with the classical electromagnetic wave. The more experienced physicist have been known to get after people who suggest otherwise. It is very important to post this thread so people aren't misled. Of coarse academic community believes there's evidence to support the single quantize photon. For instance they believe blackbody radiation is evidence, but I am saying they are wrong. Blackbody radiation is easily derived from 100% classical mechanics! They claim classical mechanics cannot predict the atomic world, but I'm going to prove them wrong. A lot of documentation and work is required. Most of my time is spent on experiments and theoretical work for a new theory that explains in detail exactly the electric field and gravity. If true, then it means they are both caused by electromagnetic radiation in the fourth dimension.

 

Please read the following well excepted article within the science community, and question all users who even suggest the photoelectric effect offers evidence for the single quantized photon. And most importantly question quantum mechanics. Don't be a follower, because that leads to a religion.

 

Physics Forums Insights:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/sins-physics-didactics/

Read the section "The photoelectric effect and the abuse of the notion of photons" and "Modern understanding of the photoelectric effect"

 

A quote for you "To describe induced transitions, in this case the absorption of a photon by an atom, molecule, or solid, we do not need to quantize the electromagnetic field at all but a classical electromagnetic wave will do, which we shall prove now in some detail."

 

I may not have time to post that often. Be cautious what people say here. I have caught them lying numerous times, saying there's an error in my math, but when I take the time to discuss it they never show the error. The full time posters here seem to have an agenda, like who's paying them to do anything within their power to suppress this truth lol? It's just weird.

 

In short, what does the photoelectric effect prove? It used to be the most monumental evidence for the photon according to the academic science community. Elbert Einstein god the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect. Present day? Academic science community now finally knows it is not evidence for the so called photon. There you go. Evidence that the entire science community got the biggest thing wrong. So they can't say I must be wrong about my claims because I am one and they are many haha.

 

pa, Einstein should have got the Nobel prize for relativity. The photoelectric effect proves absolutely nothing in terms of photons!

 

Oh how I love this quote, "And most importantly question quantum mechanics. Don't be a follower, because that leads to a religion."

So what? I don't care if you use packets in discrete units of quanta instead of photons or not. This doesn't make any difference in the formulas I provided in any of the articles I posted.

 

This brings up the key issue

 

How do you expect a macro experiment to discount the need for the Planck constant?

 

Your test has no where near the level of precision for that

You haven't provided a single solution to particle-wave duality. As far as I know no such solution exists to seperate the two.

The DC magnetic loop experiment shows emr being emitted from empty space. Nobody has been able to explain that through QM, including yourself. You miss the fact that you need to use DC to explain it.

 

But that's one of many experiments I've done. I've tested for the single photon at radio wavelengths. And don't tell me it can't be done because I did it. You just need to be clever enough. Also I've done experiments at visible light that show nothing but a continuous sine wave where the emr intensity is well below one hf per billion wavelengths. Where's your photon? Where's your packet? The probes is you people go far out of your way to emit packets of photons lol. For once why don't you people get off your high and mighty throne and listen to me by doing my simple experiment. Emit at least 2mA from a non-focused LED, view the spectrum far far away with a linear detector. View the spectrum. If there are packets then it will show up in the spectrum. It's not there. You will *never* find your photon. Try it!