Theoretical

Explaining (some aspects of) the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering and some other effects using semi-classical arguments, that is by not quantising the electromagnetic field is not news to anyone. Models that are okay were developed in the early days of quantum mechanic before quantum electrodynamics was developed. It is known that semi-classical theory can give you the right expression for the radiation intensity in the photoelectric effect.

 

Some of this is now textbook; see Mandel and Wolf's book 'Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics' for a description of the photoelectric effect.

 

None of these semi-classical results are used to argue that the electromagnetic field is not quantised, only that on certain limits if you are careful you can get reasonable answers treating the electromagnetic field as a background.

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

Let us examine the physics of what you have claimed.

 

 

A travelling magnetic field produces a unidirectional voltage, not an oscillating one.

 

A waxing and waning magnetic field that is not travelling produces a purely oscillating voltage.

 

A magnetic field that is both travelling and waxing and waning produces an oscillating voltage superimposed upon a unidirectional one.

 

I do not see this in your equations, as they stand.

 

Of course, if you are correct, you will be able to reproduce a proper reasoned argument supporting your claim.

 

Do you know what radiation resistance is? It is certainly not the resistance of a conductor.

 

I am waiting for you to prove yours claims since you are the one making them and so far the claims I have examined have turned out to be bunk.

 

For instance your rude claim about famous professors from Harvard, MIT, Manchester, Southampton and the Director of the Ohio State Radio Observatory.

Dude this is absolutely ridiculous. It's obvious what your trying to do here. It's a freaking dipole radio antenna transmitting at a frequency. At some far distance away is another freaking radio dipole antenna that only receives. Go get a freaking antenna software if you actually think there's not going to be oscillating current in it.

 

Good god I'm done here. I won't allow you to waste more of my. It's obvious you people who live in these forums are experts at what you do. Go ahead and make a mockery of this. Don't care anymore. I'm going to swamp YouTube and forums with overwhelming jaw dropping experiments and mathematical evidence of what Quantum Mechanics can't predict. How are you thugs going to stop that?

 

 

Since R = 0, congratulations you have succeeded in dividing by zero.

Wow, it speaks. No it's not zero. Lookup radiation resistance and electrical resistivity of wire, and read up on dipole antennas.

 

I think you need to get your vectors and directions sorted out - electromagnetic radiation (not just radio waves) is a self propagating set of mutually perpendicular eletric and magnetic fields which propate in the direction of travel of the radiation; but you seem to be getting your perpendiculars confused (your sums would need four!).

Absolutely not lol. If emr is traveling along x axis and b-field is polarized on z axis then the induced voltage is on the y axis. Current is then induced on y axis as seen in any antenna software. Current is oscillating on y axis, b-field still polarized on z axis, force is applied on x axis. Bingo, moment. Works out exactly to p=h/wavelength

 

Anyway, with those with at least a half brain but not quiet full: You claim the momentum from hf amount of energy per wavelength of light is h/wavelength. Great, classical mechanics can correctly predict whatever you throw at it. One hf. A million hf. Don't matter. Pick a number. The math in the top post uses one hf per wavelength. So the requirement is that the receiving antenna absorbs one hf of energy per wavelength. To do that you need to adjust the transmitting antenna power or move it farther enough away. Doesn't matter. All that matters is the receiving antenna absorbs one hf so as to see if classical mechanics gets the correct momentum of h/wavelength. You can clearly see in my top post where the receiving antenna input is adjusted so that the antenna absorb one hf per wavelength.

 

Well humour me because I think you have misread some basic physics.

 

Most texts on Electrodynamics , (eg Kip, Griffiths, Sears, Kraus, Plonus, Carter, Hammond) only derive the case I referred to where there is a current flowing in a conductor moving through a magnetic field, along rails shorted at one end. This involves a steadily increasing area and the current is the loop current.

Since the loop is made of theoretically perfect conductors no voltage is generated. The EMF is the loop EMF.

 

The only text I know that properly covers an open circuit conductor moving through a magnetic field is Grant and Philips.

They cover both the above current generation situation above and the voltage situation where the conductor is open circuit.

Of course, in the open circuit situation no current can flow.

 

This was why I asked you to amplify your equations and their conditions of applicability.

Haha I have no idea what you want. Is there a neanderthal to human translator in the room?

 

 

Anyhow enough of this nonsense. I get the feeling I could hand you ToE and you would sneeze and continue eating your burrito. This thread will never make it back to the Quantum Mechanics section. Stop asking me questions! I've given enough to convince a zombie.

God who opened the playpen. I'm out of here.

That was not an answer, since you cannot have a current unless the conductor is shorted.

There's no physicist who has even a half a brain would consider your response valid.

The equation V=vBl can be formed in some circumstances - it is the motional EMF induced in a bar shaped conductor lenght l moved through a magnetic field of B teslas at a speed v m/s. If all three are perpendicular to each other

 

What it has to do with this topic your guess is probably better than mine

If you know anything about radio electromagnetism you will know that electromagnetism is a B-field moving at the speed of light, which induces a voltage.

 

For those of us to whom this equation is less well known, what do the symbols represent and what are the conditions imposed under which it is valid please?

To know what the symbols mean see the top post. The equation works under all known conditions given known space properties such as permittivity and permeability.

Admin fine if I answer the questions and prove its not speculative then are you going to move this thread back to the Quantum Mechanics section?

 

 

 

Sure there is. Right here:

 

 

Justify that assumption

 

Also, what current is involved in EM radiation propagation? You use F = ILB.

 

Where does V = vBL come from?

 

 

What is the physical relevance of a sphere with the classical electron radius? That's an artificial value.

The current is adjusted by the following equation to that the receiving antenna is receiving one photon worth of energy per wavelength, which is power in watts:

((h*f^2) / (V^2/R))

 

The h*f^2 is the energy per wavelength of one photon per wavelength. The V^2/R is power, see ohms laws. So the current is therefore equal to V/R, which is equal to sqrt(h*f^2 / R)

 

This is not difficult to understand. In the antenna software one can see the receiving antenna received power, which equals h*f^2. And the antenna software gives the current, and so then you can calculate the force on the current by using the well known classical equation F=I*L*B

 

The equation V=v*B*L is a well known classical equation to calculate the voltage caused by a moving magnetic field.

Swanson I'm not going to converse with someone who accuses you of jerry rigging but then follows there statement by asking a question about the very line you accused me of being a jerry rigger.

 

... And actually I'll no longer answer anyone's questions here because the last guy, "Strange" asked me a question in a sincere fashion but when I spent thr time to type all of the math equations for him he turned around and spit on me in an emotional outburst.

 

That's it. If you can't figure it out then too bad. You'll have k wait for the video or send me a private message convincing me your sincere and not like all these truth firefighters that hang out on these forums to suppress truth. Who knows what their intent is. Maybe they're government thugs. :/

I wanted to copy and paste this since I already took the time to type it. Unfortunately I won't have time to reply anytime soon. The following shows how classical mechanics on a macro scale proves an hf amount of electromagnetic has h/λ momentum, derived from classical mechanics. Well established antenna software confirms. Hopefully within a few months I'll take the time to document all of the other issues academic community has had in getting classical mechanics to show other effects such as Compton scatter, blackbody radiation, mass inertia, etc.

 

The following uses electromagnetism at radio frequencies to derive the equation. Such a method is 100% evidence since we're dealing with macro scale experiments using well confirmed electromagnetism effects such as the electromotive force on charge from a moving field. There are two antennas, transmitting and receiving. There's absolutely no Jerry rigging required to derive this equation. The resulting momentum is relative to how much electromagnetic radiation is absorbed, which is photon momentum. Enjoy!

 

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 * ((h*f^2) / (V^2/R))

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

 

ps, I've built numerous antennas using the well known and established NEC antenna engine. When I set the transmitter so the receiving antenna absorbs one hf of energy per wavelength of time (1/f) then the resulting momentum on the antenna as calculated by simple classical mechanics equations is p=h/λ

 

Don't blame classical mechanics.

 

 

pss, for those who will cry the above math is nothing but slight of hand trickery, I want to make it very clear to open-minded scientists that make no mistake that electro motive force on the oscillating current in the receiving in Tina according to classical mechanics is precisely equal to the correct amount. When you multiply that force by the amount of time it takes for one wavelength we get the well-known photon momentum equation. Momentum equals force * time. Remember that the force is calculating by 100% classical mechanics. We can then take this one step further in a very clear macro scale classical mechanics mathematics derive Compton scanning.

typo on my iPhone: Tina-=antenna

 

Compton scanning=Compton scattering.

I use iPhone voice to text dictation. It's not the best lol.

 

 

 

psss lol One final gift. Take the electromotive force in wire caused by electromagnetic induction, fill the empty space with further electron charges, scale down to a single particle that has a sphere of the classical electron radius, calculate the electromotive force by using classical mechanics induction equation, and this result is the precise force caused by mass inertia.

 

 

pss id someone could be so kind as to send me a message containing a link to a good open-minded science forum Thanks!

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to Speculations.

 

This topic has moved from being a request for information and clarification to being an argument against a well accepted and exceedingly well evidenced areas of physics.

 

Please take a moment to read the rules and guidelines of the Speculations Forum

 

If admins move anything that questions the standard model to a speculative area, which is what you did, then this forum is not what I'm looking for. I will not participate in discussions at this forum given is closed-minded nature, but I will at some point post a link to my video that will go over all of the math and experents details which clearly show that light is not quantized. Please see the first page of this discussion to see an outline what areas my video and pdf will cover.

 

ps, no more time for anyone here. I'm extremely confident that I just cracked the code on the discovery of exactly what the electric and gravitational forces are. If true, it will be the discovery of all discoveries. If true, then it means the electric and gravitational forces are 4th dimensionallaly polarized radiation. More specifically, the electric field is a certain type of 4th dimensional radiation at the Compton wavelength which causes higher frequency harmonics. Gravity is caused by the non-linearity of space caused by radiation. Matter is circulating condensed light due to the non-linearity of space at intense delta-fields. We'll see if that's all correct.

I'm fairly sure the Compton effect can't be explained classically.

Good, you seem to be the only one here interested in finding truth. I will go over the math, the derivations. Everything will be detailed in pdfs and videos. Compton scattering is 100% classical, just as is light, photon momentum, blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, inertia.

 

This should be my last post in this thread unless someone is up to the challenge of doing my experiments. Very briefly, to understand Compton scatter you first need to understand photon/emr momentum. In photon momentum the emr travels through the charge, which causes the charge to oscillate back and forth transversely. The oscillation causes the charge to move through the emr B-field, which *always* causes a net forward force, which is photon momentum. Here's the math derivation:

 

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 * ((h*f^2) / (V^2/R))

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

 

This is easily seen and confirmed in well established antenna software. Explaining Compton scattering is more involved so for now I'll only outline it. So now if the charge can move in the direction the light is traveling, the charge will move forward in the direction the light is traveling, which was caused by photon momentum. As the charge moves in the direction with light, the charge continues to oscillate, but since it's moving, there's a Doppler effect which is found from the c - v, where v is the electron's velocity. This Doppler effects causes the electron to radiate lower frequency radiation. The end result is the particle scattering and some light converted to lower frequency electromagnetism radiation.

 

Sorry I won't have time to answer more questions unless it's regarding the experiment.

Interesting that you choose an article on how to teach quantum theory in an attempt to discredit quantum theory!

From that article:

(emphasis added)

No, i'm pointing out that your QM does not require the photon to explain the photoelectric effect. So we can put an end to the photoelectric effect debate.

 

So you're saying an article says QM needs to quantize light to explain blackbody radiation? So are your trying to start another debate lol? I can assure you classical mechanics does a perfect job at explaining blackbody radiation.

 

ps, don't blame classical mechanics. Blame those who cannot use it to explain the universe.

Induction in non-metals?

How do you explain bouncing off radiowave from walls in your room in that case?

They're made of non-metals (or metals bound in compounds such as white paint Zinc Oxide or Titanium Oxide).

Very simple to understand, but complex to describe. Basically you need to know the frequency, the VO the radiation resistance of the object, the resistivity and permeability and dielectric of the material. 4nec software is a nice starting pointing, but you'll need to learn how to construct grids with reactive components. I can assure you that I and many others have done such calculations with countless different materials other than copper or other common metals. It works out perfectly classically.

 

To everyone: I came across this note among others. Just do some research. There are lot of modern articles and books that detail exactly how and why the so-called photon is absolutely not required to explain before electric effect. In fact there are people who have gone through a lot of calculations, and they match experiments that do not require the photon. If you do the research, you will see it is a fact that it turns out the so-called photon is not required to explain the photoelectric effect. Anyhow, here's a quote from a physicsforum.com Insights article.

 

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

"Modern understanding of the photoelectric effect.

Let us discuss the photoelectric effect in the most simple approximation, but in terms of modern quantum theory. From this modern point of view the photoelectric effect is the induced transition of an electron from a bound state in the metal (or any other bound system, e.g., a single atom or molecule) to a scattering state in the continuous part of the energy spectrum. *****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."

An electron that's been knocked free from a piece of metal is a free electron. in the absence of an electromagnetic field it only has kinetic energy. and it can have pretty much any amount of that which it likes.

So there's no defined energy and thus there's no resonant transition.

 

Also re. "If the material reflects the light then it's not absorbed. "

Thanks for clarification of the fact that you don't know how mirrors work.

 

Perhaps you should stop worrying about our smoking habits and go and learn some science

Actually knowing what you are talking about can be very rewarding. perhaps you might try it some time.

The heart of reflection is best understood with macro scale radio frequencies. It is electromagnetic induction where the charge accelerates/decelerates, reflecting the emr energy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the absorption and immediate emission of so called photons.

Plain wrong.

What are you people smoking over here? Lol. If the material reflects the light then it's not absorbed. Furthermore, as stated, absorption is no guarantee an electron will eject.

 

Enough time wasted on nonsense. Unfortunately it seems apparent nobody here can perform the request an experiment.

The spectral lines are for transitions involving intermediate states, NONE of which are involved in the PEE. It's the ground state and the continuum. That's it. The light that causes the PEE is not resonant with any of the transitions for which you would have spectral lines. It's at higher energy than all of them.

Nonsense. Absorption spectral lines are self explanatory. If the materials doesn't absorb the light for a given frequency then it doesn't absorb the energy.

 

 

You have it backwards with regard to joule heating the amount of energy you need to add to "boil off" electrons is much, much higher than what you need with photons.

That's what I said.

Nice idea. The atomic world is a beautiful world of light circulating dancing around each other in a beautiful tune in warped space fields.

I would highly recommend you read my previous thread. The atomic world by its very nature produces pulses of light which you could call packets, but this is not a requirement or universal law. I've done numerous experiments at the visible light region which shows intense light shined far away to the point of where quantum mechanics predicts it should be quantized "packets" is not true. Light is classical. Atomic world is quantized in nature, but the very nature of light itself is not quantized. Also I've done extensive so-called "single photon" experiments at radio frequencies below 50 MHz. The results show light is not quantized. In due time all of this and a whole lot more will be documented in PDFs and video.

 

No, really, you don't. In the PEE you are by definition ionizing the atom; you measure a current of emitted electrons. There is only a cutoff wavelength (or frequency) beyond which the effect does not happen. Spectral line widths don't enter into the analysis at all. Unless you are doing it wrong, that is.

You're contradicting yourself. You say the it's caused by ionization, which is true of course, but you don't acknowledge the simple fact that spectral lines (obviously absorption spectra lines) is what determines how much energy is absorbed by the matter. And again it's complex, since the spectral lines which pertain to the ejection of electrons causing ionization, as opposed to spectral lines which pertaining to electron which merely heat up the matter without ejection. So you can heat the matter all day till you're blue in the face with light that does not eject electrons which merely heats up the matter and you only end up ionizing the matter to a small degree as common joule meeting. It's a known fact that joule heating also ejects electrons in the vacuum tubes, but by an infinitesimal amount of energy compared to UV light. BTW there is indeed a peak wavelength to the photoelectric effect. Again it depends on how well the light at a given frequency causes ionization. If you've seen the UV spectral lines you would see how many there are. Anyhow I'm surprised you haven't seen the papers on how the photoelectric effect is explained classically.

@Swanson photoelectric effect is complex. Before the atom becomes ionized the electron has to absorb energy. That's where spectral lines are required to analyze the photoelectric effect. Unfortunately, due to its complexity, the photoelectric effect is one of the worst examples to attempt to prove any possible particle nature of light.