Theoretical

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 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.

iPhone dictation correction: traverse=transverse B along with everything is in rms, root mean square.

The current comes from the electromagnetic wave, which is an oscillating traverse force. It's how antennas work.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 "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 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.

... 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

No, real measurements and Spice sims clearly show high speed transistors dissipated no appreciable energy that goes into the magnetic field. 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. Thanks. Are you referring to the Compton scattering, photon momentum, etc math derived from purely classical mechanics?

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

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.

Of what you mention, he only one that academic community has ever figure out how to do in terms of classical mechanics is the photoelectric effect. So I think it will be big news when everyone sees my pdf and videos how all of those and a lot more are 100% derived mathematically by classical mechanics. We're not talking about somewhat close answers. No, classical mechanics gets the *exact* equation as I proved in another thread on the photon momentum. (typo: first sentence "he" = "the"

Indeed Relativity is amazing. with its relativistic changes, mass changes, time dilation, length contraction. Yes I've heard about the CERN coils. In my coil experiment the goal is to quench the current as rapidly as possible. If the coil is 2uH, and the coil current is 5mA, and it's quenched in 1ns, then the induction is 10 volts. It's advisable to use at least 10GHz transistors. My 25 GHz transistors work great. They have a voltage breakdown of 15 V.

Here's an old simple experiment I did hundreds of times. After asking dozens of physicist, nobody can explain it through QM, but it is extremely simple and straightforward in terms of classical mechanics. A circular wire coil, preferably made of material with high resistivity so as to immediately quench the electrical current. A power supply produces DC current through the wire, thus forming a magnetic field that extends outside the coil. Through means of signal averaging by taking thousands of readings, one can detect a magnetic field with a hall effect device from the coil at great distances. The longer the current is held, the farther out the field stabilizes. Next step, remove the coil current as fast as possible. What will happen is the collapsing magnetic field will induce a voltage on the coil. If you design it well, your transistors will quench the current in a sufficient amount of time. You can then analyze the collapsing magnetic field on your oscilloscope. Furthermore, you can place electromagnetic sensors at varying distances away from the coil to detect the collapsing signal. The duration of time you can detect the collapsing incoming electromagnetic wave merely depends on how sensitive your sensor is. So you're wondering what happens when the collapsing magnetic field reaches the center. The answer is that the magnetic field continues on expanding outward again, slows down, and in recollapses again. This repeats over and over until all of the magnetic field energy has radiated outward as a far field. You can place sensors far away from the coil, detect the signal, and calculate the total radiated energy. You will find that the radiated energy equals the amount of stored energy that was originally in the DC coil. So if we look at the experiment, we see that the stored energy in the magnetic field that extended far far away from the coil is what produces what QM calls photons. Although, if you're up to date on all of my single photon experiments at radio frequencies and visible light frequencies, you will begin to see that the so-called single photon does not exist. I would also refer you to Eric Stanley Reiter who has shown experimentally that so-called single gamma ray can be split. For the physicist who do their research and know what they're talking about, they know full well and clearly admit the photoelectric effect does not require the photon particle, but works perfectly well with the classical electromagnetic wave. So far I can mathematically derive the effects such as photoelectric, blackbody radiation, photon momentum, compton scattering and a lot more with classical mechanics. Some may call this semi classical mechanics because they need QM to explain anything that has atoms and electrons, such as sensors, but classical mechanics can also explain the atomic world as well. You just need to give it a chance. Classical mechanics never failed anyone. It's us who failed classical mechanics. You will never convert Einstein's relativity to quantum mechanics because that is not the nature of the universe. I am sorry to say that the entire science community consisting of millions of physicist over the past century will trying until they are blue in the face to take quantum mechanics to the next level because the universe is not quantized. The atomic world is digital like in nature such that it appears to be quantized. And it is true that electrons snap and vibrate in place to give these appearances. The digital signals in your cpu have the same appearances, but when analyzed on a high-speed oscilloscope we clearly see the signal rising and a relatively slow rate. Furthermore, you will see on the oscilloscope that the signal bounces and oscillates a little bit when it reaches its peak. Quantum mechanics was created as a tool by backward engineering atomic experiments. Of course it's going to correctly predict the atomic world, but it will never show you the nature of reality. Einstein was correct about Quantum Mechanics!! If you are interested in doing experiments and research that well absolutely take us to the next mechanics, what some refer to as ToE, then please please by all means contact me in private. I've already had academic scientist contact me saying I am correct that classical mechanics can explain these effects. Eventually hopefully by the end of this year, knock on wood lol, I will release the details of what the electric and gravitational fields are. So far my theory on Electric and Gravitational fields is theoretical, but it has made some incredible predictions which can be tested experimentally. Hopefully it's true! Please contact me, preferably on YouTube. See my profile for a link to my YouTube account. The experiments are piling up. Make history!

Anyone who sees what's happening to the science forums and community can find my relatively new YouTube channel at: Advertising url deleted per rule 2.7. When admins delete your YouTube channel you know there's censorship. Just see my profile page here to see a link to my YouTube channel