Jump to content

Theoretical

Senior Members
  • Posts

    323
  • Joined

Posts posted by Theoretical

  1. I'm a little confused here. Your premise seems to read that classical mechanics works in an antenna application where QM doesn't. From your opening post. This conclusion derives from, you asked several people to describe your test in terms of QM.

     

    Thus far you posted the classical equations, yet haven't posted a single plane wave equation or transverse wave equation used in QM?

     

    This makes me wonder just how deep you truly looked into the capability of QM?

     

    It's rather easy to find material on QM wave functions. This includes transverse waves.

     

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjACahUKEwjv7IaPosjHAhWXLYgKHW2QCcs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people.fas.harvard.edu%2F~djmorin%2Fwaves%2Ftransverse.pdf&rct=j&q=QM%20transverse%20wave%20equations%20&ei=rHzeVe_mKJfboATtoKbYDA&usg=AFQjCNG_u_-JcjoW2OV1Z07mf4EiLaAmCw&sig2=0lIlzElea-bnCiQ2QW0SQg

     

    Thus far the equations you posted are quite frankly rudimentary. I haven't seen any indication of a detailed analysis. Have you looked into the related Hamilton's?

     

    If your trying to convince us it might be an idea to post a greater rigor comparison between the limits of classical and QM wave functions.

     

    (Particularly with the numerous claims you've stated thus far in this thread) yet showed only basic equations.

     

    Thus far this thread I haven't seen any related knowledge of your understanding of QM nor QED. Which makes me question just how deep you looked into those subjects. Yet make the claims you've made

    So you're suggesting quantum mechanics can solve the macro scale magnetic loop experiment explained in this thread? This is not the only place I've asked the question to physicist who are knowledgeable in quantum mechanics. You're the only person who's suggested it's possible. I've never seen any problem like this in all of my quantum mechanics books. Can you please provide a simple example?

  2.  

    And that's why it was wrong. You got the free-space answer, but you derived it in a medium, where the photon's momentum changes by n, the index of refraction.

    What lol? What makes you think it can't get the correct answers in a medium? Have you tried? Of course not. It would work. A medium introduces different of permittivity in permeability. This is well understood and used in antenna theory.

    Forgive my iPhone's dictation.

  3. F = BLv

     

    This is the equation that describes the force on a conductor moving through a constant magnetic field of strength B with velocity v.

     

    It is also the equation for the force on a stationary conductor which endures a constant magnetic field moving past with velocity v.

     

    What is the correct equation for the force on a stationary conductor enduring a varying magnetic field B(t) (where B is a function of time) ?

    No. BLv in my equations s a voltage on the wire, not a force.

  4.  

    BTW you can remove the three duplicate lines since I removed the scaling.

    Remove these duplicate lines:

    "Scale to one photon per wavelength:

    F=(V/R)*L*B

    Substitute B for V/L/c"

    v is the speed of light.

     

     

    v is the speed of light

     

    So B is not steady?

     

    Your equation does not say this.

     

    And what is v the velocity of?

    Of course. B-field is the magnetic field in the electromagnetic wave.

    If it makes it easier on you, the electromagnetic wave causes transverse current oscillations. Such transverse current oscillations causes a forward force, which is what electromagnetic momentum is. Of course all of this along with much more will be detailed in the video.

  5.  

     

    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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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. :)

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. @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.

  14. @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.

     

    I'm saying classical mechanics can predict all known experiments, and can derive all known equations. For example classical mechanics derives the Compton scattering equation, so according to academic community classical mechanics correctly predicts Compton scattering experiments. Again, we're not talking about closing enough calculations. We're talking about exact agreement with quantum mechanics, except that classical mechanics shows what is happening on the atomic scale.

     

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

     

    Regarding CM2 predicting what electric field is, it's showing its a different type of electromagnetism with fourth dimensional traverse oscillations. And gravity, CM2 is showing that it is fourth dimensional radiation which causes nonlinearities in space. So yes, CM2 is showing in detail what the electric field and gravity are.

     

    Well you can't say you disagree with my conclusion regarding my radio and visible light experiments which show there is no single quantized photon because those experiments have not been released yet. Furthermore, I have addressed everything you and others have thrown at me in regards to any possible evidence of the single photon.

    that is, the single *quantized* photon.

  15. ... In the other thread where I derived photon momentum from classical mechanics, I use a classical radio wave antenna. In the video I will show how to derive photon momentum from electric charge instead of antenna theory, of course classical mechanics, because it seems most physicist are not so familiar with antenna theory.

    For a lot of situations the corrections due to quantising the EM field are going to be tiny. I expect that to be the case with your classical experiment. The classical result work very well.

     

    So what is the point?

    Well first off QM can't even predict the experiment in this thread, but the point of deriving qm equations from classical mechanics is to show that classical mechanics gets the precise correct equations, not close enough equations. Furthermore, classical mechanics shows a world more detail as to what is happening with the charges and electromagnetic waves. If that's not enough, I have found that what I temporarily call a CM2 theory is predicting exactly what the electric field and what gravity is.

     

    As for electromagnetism been quantized, my experiments at radio and visible light wavelengths clearly shown that is completely incorrect. This is an entirely different topic, which I've gone into in other thread.

     

    Which required a fudge (assume photons I think you said). Don't state things as if they were unchallenged it doesn't give a good impression.

    What? It did not require any fudge! The equation of coarse needs to know the intensity of the light in order to predict the momentum of the electromagnetism,.period. As clearly stated numerous times the unitless factor was dividing watts by watts so the equation would know the intensity of the electromagnetism. Also as stated numerous times, this equation can be plugged into an antenna program such as Nick that clearly shows the photon momentum. And of course the neck equation needs to know the emr intensity.

    in case you still don't understand it, the watts / watts was to set the equation into one hf amount of energy per wavelength. You can have the equation and solve the momentum for any amount of light intensity you want. The QM equation is for one photon, so by plugging one photon into the classical mechanics equation we Proof that classical mechanics gives the exact sam calculated results.

  16. As predicted by classical electrodynamics.

     

    Okay, so what does quantum electrodynamics predict? Can you tell the difference (if any) using your experiment.

    I'm pretty sure classical electrodynamics is part of classical mechanics. :) Right?

     

    That's the million dollar question that has been asked to hundreds of physicist who specialize in quantum mechanics and QED. So far nothing.

     

    Good luck finding a classical superconductor or a classical transistor. (well, I did say it didn't matter )

    Well in another thread I showed the math deriving photon momentum from electromotive force from classical mechanics that predicts the precise equation p=h/wavelength. I am convinced that classical mechanics will predict all known experiments. So far CM has derived the math equations for photon momentum, compton scattering, blackbody radiation, mass inertia, E=mc^2, Relativity, de Broglie wavelength. Even Bells test experiment.
  17. Plenty of blown transistors show that to be wrong in the real world, though, as I said, it hardly matters.

    If you had talked of a superconducting coil and a superconducting capacitor then the only loss would be from radiation.

     

    Good luck finding a classical superconductor or a classical transistor. (well, I did say it didn't matter )

    A superconducting coil would be going in the wrong direction in terms of this experiment. At high rate of change appreciable standing waves are created in the wire loop. It is an RL circuit. The RL time constant decreases as you increase resistance, which means the standing wave is dissipated at a faster rate with higher resistance. Most of the energy loss is in the magnetic field that is near the wire, but that can be decreased by increasing the wire diameter, and of course increasing the resistivity is well. A simple method to achieve this is by soldering thousands of small resistors in series together forming dozens of loops connected together in parallel, with each loop having dozens of transistors spread throughout each loop connected to a high-speed photodiode which turns all the transistors off with a single light pulse, but that is an overkill since the goal is merely to verify that the static magnetic field collapses, thereby demonstrating that the emitted electromagnetic far field can come from space traveling inward toward the electric charges.

    ...as predicted by classical mechanics. :)

  18. No. You will not, because much of it is dissipated in the transistors and as heat in the coil.

     

    It hardly matters, but it shows that you have not fully though this through.

    No, real measurements and Spice sims clearly show high speed transistors dissipated no appreciable energy that goes into the magnetic field.

    Write it up and submit to to peer review. That is what the rest of us do when we have an interesting new result.

     

    I know of journals that would be interested in this (assuming it is correct). I will also add that you do not need to be associated with any academic institution or hold any advanced degrees. If the paper is good enough it will get past the initial editorial stage and then be assessed by two or more experts in the subject.

    Thanks for the help. I'll send you a copy before sending the paper. Yes I can assure you the classical mechanics math is straightforward and correct. I also have numerical analysis that show correct results.

     

     

    Except maybe a journal article. You know, something written down. And peer-reviewed, regardless of how insulting one finds that.

    Thanks. Are you referring to the Compton scattering, photon momentum, etc math derived from purely classical mechanics?
  19.  

    Why not just post the work here?

    I will when the video is done, but I'm not going to paste my chicken scratching. Something like that deserves well documentation and a classroom type presentation only found in a video. Otherwise I get an onslaught of questions that from my point of you are insulting in ridiculous. No offense intended to anyone. There's nothing like a chalkboard classroom presentation, IMO.

     

     

    Doing some history documentation and came across this Wikipedia quote:

     

    "Although Classical electromagnetism predicted that the wavelength of scattered rays should be equal to the initial wavelength,[3] multiple experiments had found that the wavelength of the scattered rays was longer (corresponding to lower energy) than the initial wavelength."

     

    Yes of course academic community believes CM can't correctly derive the Compton scattering equation.

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

  20.  

    Clarification, academic community has not solved the photoelectric effect using only classical mechanics. They *can* use a semi classical model which uses classical and quantum mechanics. In a video I will go over every detail showing how *only* classical mechanics can derive the entire photoelectric effect.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.