Theoretical

 

Not necessarily. Particularly with reflected power, never seen an antenna lose transmitting power? Through impedance mismatch?

Plenty of times but the equation is for a specific amount of energy absorption.

You should study what QM states and what the mathematics actually covers before claiming to debunk it

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

Yeah exactly the right hand rule and helicity. Which also has effects on spin statistics.

 

Funny how you stated you use RMS. But stated the Poynting vector isn't involved. Which I just showed you it is.

 

Guess that makes me the stupid one right?

Not bad for a lowly forum poster

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

You want to properly do this then you need to show the waveform direction and the average energy density as sinusoidal waveforms flows in both directions not just one

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

The thing you don't realize is QM has a little aspect called probability density. So your going to need to cover this classically .

 

Hence the Langrene and Hamiltonian posts I provided you

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.

Above, as in the top of page 6.

Yes it is. in the above equation you'll see the rms conversion of sqrt(2). It's unitless of course.

Really in what direction? How does your equations account for the average of the squares of a sinusoidal waveform, which applies to your antenna.

 

Even digital antennas uses sinusoidal waveforms. Yes I do work with radios.

Have you ever heard of rms? It says that. Please read.

 

In what direction? That's basis classical electrodynamics. When the charge is forced left of the propagating field, the force is forward. When the charge is forced right, obviously it is forced right because the propagating be field is oppositely polarized compared to when the charge was forced left. So we have an opposite polarized field, and the charge is traveling in the opposite direction, we have two negatives multiplied together equal the same direction, which is why the charge always is forced this effect is easily seen in analyzed in in Tenna software forward in the same direction as the propagating field. Very simple. This effect is easily seen and analyzed in in antenna software.

Because it's not quantum mechanics. It's the laughable attempt of a few desperate physicists trying to get quantum mechanics to explain anything else outside the atomic world. And it doesn't work. You don't even know what you're talking about. DC current is not a traverse wave lol.

Lol you didn't even post a single equation using the Poynting vector. Which by the way is classical and specifically relates to your experiment.

Nor did you show why your equations include the Planck constant. Yet claim to not require QM.

What do you think h stands for?

Stop the lies. I already said why the equation uses h and said it doesn't have to. It could easily be in units of 1 joule instead of hf. Wake up. The equation is derived correctly. No need for poynting vector. The equation correctly predicts the momentum of light.

Do you honestly believe your insults mean anything.

 

Do you honestly believe anything you posted in any way has the potential of challenging QM? Are you on good glue?

 

Are you not aware that Einstein worked with Planck in developing the Planck constant?

 

Do you honestly believe the Planck constant studies stopped?

Do you honestly believe your macroscopic tests in any way counters thousands of studies, on particle wave duality, spin statistics, Schrodinger equations, probability amplitude functions etc.

 

Quite frankly, I haven't seen a single equation or test you've provided that cannot be explained by QM. Nor do I see any test or post you've provided that in any shape or form discredits the need for the Planck constant at the quantum scale of measurements.

Can classical mechanics describe the macroscopic tests and antenna waveforms Absolutely, but so can QM.

 

Your tests does absolutely nothing in regards to the Planck constant. Zip zero nothing

 

 

Worse off you fail to see that several accredited Physicists and a highly creditted mathematician points out your errors and reply with insults instead of answering their questions. One of those repliers has a PH.D.

 

Believe me their isn't a single professional physicist on this site that feels your tests and mathematics in any way shape or form has the potential to challenge QM.

 

Especially with the lack of rigor on being able to directly and mathematically answer their specific questions

You're full of hot air. You can't even show the math that predicts the experiment in this thread. How laughable you think Quantum Mechanics can predict a completely non-quantized experiment. For ages people with your level of mentality have tried to quantize Relativity lol.

 

Not a single person in this thread has shown one error in my math. Your are a blatant liar.

The closest anyone has come to attempting to debunk my math was the guy who wrote in error that force equals voltage lmao. Go away.

By Joe I've spotted the problem lol. If Albert Einstein was alive today, would he be hanging out at public science forms? No! Einstein exchanged letters with selective people. Wow what a vast spectrum of minds in the science community with only a few in the gamma region, unfortunately.

 

For anyone who gets it, contact me in private.

See my profile for details. Contact me at YouTube.

 

So are you claiming that a massive particle of charge is moving at the speed of light?

c is the electromagnetic wave traveling at the speed of light.

 

Honestly, studiot, just wait for the video lol.

moderator, i've already answered those questions too many times already. If they can't understand it then I don't have anymore time to answer it. If closing the thread is what you want to do, then do it.

 

If you want to pretend that I did not answer the questions about photon and h in a clear concise fashion, then what a pity. Maybe you're seeing what you want to see because I threaten Quantum Mechanics.

 

Here's a quick copy and paste of emr momentum using charge, not an antenna, derived from classical mechanics, again in units of hf. Again, the reason for using hf is for your convenience so that you can see the classical mechanics gets the same answer as quantum mechanics. Again the classical mechanics predicts the correct amount of momentum. hf is joules.

 

 

Using charge to derive emr momentum from classical mechanics, and hf energy:

 

F=q*v*B

v is speed of light:

F=q*c*B

 

calculate the charges traverse peak velocity from one h*f amount of energy:

E=(m*v^2)/2=h*f

solve for v

v=sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m) m/s

convert from peak to rms (root mean square) since charge oscillates back & force transversely

v=sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2) rms

 

 

calculate traverse force:

a=v/t

t=1/f

a=v*f

a=(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*f

F=m*a

F=m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f) rms

 

 

calculate emr B-field:

F=q*v*B

solving for B

B=F/q/c

B=(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c rms

 

transversely oscillating charge causes forward force:

F=q*v*B

F=q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c

a=F/m

a=(q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m

v=a*t

v=((q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m)*t

t=1/f

v=((q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m)/f

p=m*v

p=m*(((q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m)/f)

Simplifies to:

p=h*(f/c)

Convert from frequency to wavelength:

p=h/λ

 

This derivation uses one wavelength to convert the traverse oscillations to forward momentum, but it doesn't matter how many wavelengths you use, as the result is the same mathematically.

 

I don't think you people appreciate what has been given to you...

 

Short packets ≠ photons. You are analyzing the wrong thing.

I never said shirt packets *equals* a photon lol. The so-called photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy. The atomic world emits such packets of energy as a decaying burst.

I apologize for not responding to every post now because of limited time. Thanks

It's pretty sad how desperate academic community is in proving their theories, as clearly seen in their experiments that have other alternative explanations that are so pronounced they're flashing red beacons. For example anti bunching claim for the photon particle lol. Gee, we use PMTs that are in Avalanche mode which *require* a reset period after each Avalanche, and they know the particles which emit light also have a reset period as well, but yet they claim anti bunching is proof lol. Wow!! Just unbelievable. The truth is that the wanna be physicist are making such claims, while the notable real physicist stay clear of such claims.

 

So that's enough.

I have already provided a very simple and straightforward experiment that will allow anyone to determine the packet duration from light. But here's the catch. The experiment is set up so that there are no such packets. So you will not find any. This proves there is no quantized photon. Again, experiment is to shine a lot of light from an LED of roughly 2mA to 20mA. Then place the light sensor so that the received energy for the given amount of area on the light sensor falls to extremely low intensity. You can do this by moving the sensor far away or by using metal mirrors to reflect the light back-and-forth. You will then analyze the light spectrum. If there are packets in the received emr, then it will show up in the spectrum. Shorter packet bursts have more bandwidth. This is basic well known established spectral analysis. I've done the experiments, which did not show any packets because an intense amount of light from the LED eliminates packets. By moving the sensor far away, you are decreasing the line intensity. The problem with all academic experiments so far is that they go out of their way to emit packet bursts of light.

 

Try my experiment, and you will see there are no packets or burst in the spectrum. The spectrum will show a solid continuous wave at ****any**** light intensity far below one hf per trillions of wavelengths.

Clarification: of course they are packets in the intense light emitted by the LED, but they are appreciably small relative to the net light. So the net light is appreciably stable. By allowing space to attenuate the light by allowing it to travel at far distances you are decreasing the emr intensity. You will not find your quantum mechanics hf in this light.

The above experiment does not rely upon avalanche detectors. You merely need a linear photo detector using long sample durations to analyze the spectrum. That is how you do it. The spectrum when analyzed with a linear detector clearly shows no photon anti bunching or packets are burst.

Analyze the spectrum.

Avalanche detector prohibited lol

Linear detectors. What a concept.

Long sample times to get the linear detectors SNR high enough for a spectrum analysis.

Intense light from fee far away.

Results: pure sine wave. No photons.

So the experiments by Kimble, Dagenais, and Mandel in 1977 which clearly show the discrete nature of light are just to be thrown out? The experiments have been performed in many different ways now, including so I read some undergraduate labs. We have good mathematical reasons why antibunching cannot be explained in any wave models.

 

Anyway, any experiment that cannot detect photons for whatever reason does not mean that we have to disregard the whole notion.

I already explained to you very clearly in our private discussion in Sakely why the Ares detecting anti-bunching photons.

 

Quote, "Yes there's definitely much debate in academic community whether or not photon antibunching proves the photon particle. There is a massive problem with the experiments. PMTs that are sensitive enough to detect the so-called single photon are in avalanche mode, and therefore PMT needs to be reset after each photon of event, which has a recovery time. Furthermore, as evident in my experiment request, the way they emitting photons by lowering the emitter intensity or by using smaller emitters is definitely a way of emitting photon packets. The problem with that is its well known the particle that emitted the packet also requires a recovery time. So all of the experiments have the recovery time issue on both the emitter and receiver. To do away with the emitter issue I have suggested to emit light from an intense source such as an LED, and then effectively separate the receiver from the source such that intensity is low enough to produce single photon events. Unfortunately nobody in the thread did the experiment. One of the admins suggested it's not possibly to detect single photons without putting the PMT in avalanche mode, which in itself should be a flashing red beacon the science community."

 

As stated, the problem with all those experiments you cling to is due to the very neat of the detector. Detectors that are capable of sensing that low intensity of light have avalanches. Even the notable academic scientists are very clear in stating that the photoelectric affect does not require quantize light, as it works with the classical electromagnetic wave.

iPhone dictation correction:

"I already explained to you very clearly in our private discussion in Sakely why the Ares detecting anti-bunching photons."

=

"I already explained to you very clearly in our private discussion exactly why they detecting anti-bunching photons."

 

I have already provided a very simple and straightforward experiment that will allow anyone to determine the packet duration from light. But here's the catch. The experiment is set up so that there are no such packets. So you will not find any. This proves there is no quantized photon. Again, experiment is to shine a lot of light from an LED of roughly 2mA to 20mA. Then place the light sensor so that the received energy for the given amount of area on the light sensor falls to extremely low intensity. You can do this by moving the sensor far away or by using metal mirrors to reflect the light back-and-forth. You will then analyze the light spectrum. If there are packets in the received emr, then it will show up in the spectrum. Shorter packet bursts have more bandwidth. This is basic well known established spectral analysis. I've done the experiments, which did not show any packets because an intense amount of light from the LED eliminates packets. By moving the sensor far away, you are decreasing the line intensity. The problem with all academic experiments so far is that they go out of their way to emit packet bursts of light.

 

Try my experiment, and you will see there are no packets or burst in the spectrum. The spectrum will show a solid continuous wave at ****any**** light intensity far below one hf per trillions of wavelengths.

Clarification: of course they are packets in the intense light emitted by the LED, but they are appreciably small relative to the net light. So the net light is appreciably stable. By allowing space to attenuate the light by allowing it to travel at far distances you are decreasing the emr intensity. You will not find your quantum mechanics hf in this light.

all predicted and derived from classical mechanics.

What I just meant by atomic world is beyond Compton scattering and such. I'm talking about how atoms are formed, bonded together, how exchange is energy, emit packet bursts of energy, etc.

All derived from only from classical mechanics.

 

Experiments will be released that clearly show man made devices can emit and absorb sub hf energies per burst.

QUOTE: "packet bursts of energy" - Quantised bursts you mean? ;-)

Yes, as I stated many times that is the nature of the atomic world, but it is not a law, as man-made devices can emit and absorb sub photon of energy.

all predicted and derived from classical mechanics.

What I just meant by atomic world is beyond Compton scattering and such. I'm talking about how atoms are formed, bonded together, how exchange is energy, emit packet bursts of energy, etc.

@ajb

 

The equations do not state any quantize values, which is correct.

 

 

"But how can it if you do not get the right formula for Compton scattering?"

 

Because the formula can be derived for any value. It doesn't have to be derived from hf or h/wavelength. Momentum is momentum. I can just as easily derive Compton scattering equation using mv instead of h/wavelength. Happy lol?

 

Classical mechanics gives the correct prediction for any amount of momentum.

 

ajb, sorry but your post are becoming absolutely ridiculous. I don't have more time for this. I've spent more than enough time trying to help you.

 

Best wishes.

 

FYI for those who are open-minded and interesting: h (planck's constant) is for the atomic world, a world governed by burst of energy.

Hopefully sometime this year I will publish the papers on how classical mechanics predicts and derives equations for the atomic world. Classical mechanics not only shows the correct equations, but it shows you a world of information that is happening in that atomic world that quantum mechanics could never show you.

You're doing the equivalent of standing by a closed door. Claiming you can walk through the door without opening it. Opening the die walking through and telling everyone you didn't open the door. If you assume photons you are introducing qm into your classical derivation.

Wrong. Feeding hf or h/wavelength into an equation absolutely does not suggest quantization. hf is energy. The equation could care less what you feed it. Fact still remains classical mechanics gets the correct prediction.

Where did the E= hf come from if not quantum theory? Classical theory does not have such a relation! That is why your derivations cannot be truly classical. Any claim otherwise is just wrong.

 

Your derivations maybe okay, but they cannot be completely classical.

 

The general rule is "if it's got an 'h', then it is quantum".

 

 

 

Again, such a relation must be quantum. As you seem to know, either you quantise the radiation or you quantise the matter (or do both) to derive dλ. But you have to quantise something to get the 'h'.

 

I hope you understand our very basic objections here, which come down to how did you get 'h' form purely classical arguments?

You seem to be too caught up in this idea of the single photon particle. If you do not feed the single photon momentum into the Compton scattering equation, QM or CM, then of course the resulting equation will not have have h in it. All that matters is if the equation can correctly predict experimental results, and classical mechanics does that very well. Again, The equation gives you the correct value. If you want to know the scattered angle for a particle that has absorbed h/wavelength, then CM gives the well known equation, thus proving classical mechanics gives the precise exact scattered angle.

 

Please get off of h. As far as I know h is derived from experiments:

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

For many particle applications in QM you need to look at Langrene and Hamilton functions which correlate to the electromagnetic field. The nice thing about it is you can further break it down into partial wave derivitives. Say for example how does the Poynting vector correlate?

 

This isn't something you find in Introductory QM textbooks.

 

 

Here for example is how to derive the aforementioned Lorentz force law in non relativistic QM.

 

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node452.html

 

if you look through this site they will get into gauge invariants.

Any wave function can be described via Hamiltonian, however this starts involving particularly strong math skills.

(Including classical formulation for electromagnetic waves can also be converted)

The above is used extensively in QED and QFT applications.

Coincidentally if you study this site you will come across problems that classical mechanics could not solve but we're solved using QM.

 

Here is one example

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node49.html

 

Here are some more examples

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node47.html

You should also look closely at the Poynting vector.

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

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CCwQFjAFahUKEwiaksaVxMjHAhWElIgKHZjpDOk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2F~mevans%2Fem%2Flec14.pdf&rct=j&q=Poynting%20vector%20Hamiltonian&ei=YaDeVdrdBYSpogSY07PIDg&usg=AFQjCNGUv-wRUTVh5iQ7YPSKCW_KbOM8zQ&sig2=oGK1w4SH3GMzOF8fV7Nlbw

 

This has the QM derivitive for the Poynting vector.

 

Here is some applications

http://www.physicspages.com/tag/poynting-vector/

Removing the quantization from fields, deriving them from classical mechanics, and calling it quantum mechanics is outlandish.

 

For decades we've been hearing how classical mechanics cannot predict for photon moment, Compton scattering, blackbody radiation, bells test experiment, etc. Turns out that's all incorrect, because I've completed it, and it's going to be published. So for you to say classical mechanics cannot do something is wrong from my perspective because time after time I've deriving all the big ones that everyone said can't be done.

 

So regarding the experiment mentioned in this thread, there is a DC current going through the coil, which produces a magnetic D magnetic field extending far out to space. I don't think quantum mechanics has a clue how to do that.

 

Furthermore, all of my experiments at radio and visible light wavelengths have disapprove the quantum mechanics single quantized photon. Quantum mechanics is very wrong. This you will learn in due time. Just give me time to put everything together. Additionally I am in the process of doing some other experiments, which if true, will be like a supernova explosion in the academic community.

@ajb I have already addressed that too many times already. Classical mechanic correctly predicts emr momentum. The hf is for the atomic world. And yes classical mechanics can predict the atomic world, but a more time is required to derive those.

 

If you want to know the Compton scattering for a particle or object that absorbs h/λ momentum, then the classical mechanics equations results in exactly h/(m*c) * (1 - cos(a)) for dλ. Again, the so-called single photon is regarding the atomic world where hf joules is radiated in packet bursts. This packet of hf joules is by no means is a law. Sure, if you're going to have atomic matter emit emr, then in all likelihood it will result in such packet bursts, but if you emit emr through unnatural manmade means, then it is possible to emit and receive less then one hf joules. I know because I have verified this experimentally

 

 

You derived it for an antenna (a medium), but got the answer for free space.

I need derived it for free space. It can be derived for any type of medium.

iPhone dictation errors: in last sentence remove the word "need"

"So regarding the experiment mentioned in this thread, there is a DC current going through the coil, which produces a magnetic D magnetic field extending far out to space." = "So regarding the experiment mentioned in this thread, there is a DC current going through the coil, which produces a DC magnetic field extending far out to space. "