Theoretical

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.

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. 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

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.

Ask the admins lol. Suuuure! I can just feel this love here lol.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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!

Plenty of times but the equation is for a specific amount of energy absorption. Single quantized photons don't exist. How's that for a start. Packets of electromagnetic waves exist.

You should study this a bit more before posting on it. It's pretty simple lol.

photo=photon No it doesn't because it's not necessary. As stated it's always a forward force.

You mean like a like a big photo of a guy using the right hand rule pointing to direction? Never mind, don't answer lol. Anyhow, I keep telling everyone that this is a copy and paste, the details will be in the video and paper I'm well aware of probability density. But I don't think you get it yet. There is no single quantized photo particle. It's a wave. The probability aspect is pointless with emr. ...That's why you will never find the photon particle going through one of the slits lol. It doesn't exist. It's a wave.