Experiment: QM fails, CM succeeds

[Theoretical]

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.

[ajb]

QUOTE: "h is derived from experiments"

 

Yes - ones that show that energy is quantised, no? :-/ Which is quantum mechanics? Correct me if I am wrong please someone - I am not a 'pure' physicist.

Yes, you need some theory in which 'h' appears as some physical constant (some parameter of the theory) in order to measure something and then derive the value. Planck's constant does not appear without some context and this context is the strange differences between the everyday world and the atomic one. Indeed no physical constants, or anything we measure 'just appears', they are related deeply to the theories that require them. In this sense we cannot completely separate the physical and mathematical worlds as we use the mathematical one to understand the physical one.

 

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.

So, where E = hf come from if not quantum theory?

 

How did you 'pick' the numerical value of 'h' without quantum theory? What does 'h' even mean without quantum theory? Why should our classical world care about 'h'?

Edited August 27, 2015 by ajb

[Theoretical]

@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.

[ajb]

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

E = hf does not imply by itself that the EM field is quantised, I agree if that is what you are saying. It only really suggests that the EM field interacts with matter in a 'lumpy way'. But of course we developed QED since the early days of QM.

 

Because the formula can be derived for any value.

Okay, you derive the formula as you do... and then you look at the experiment of Compton and see something is not quite right.

 

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?

Well it won't work as the momentum of a photon is not p = mv!

 

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

You get some formula, so what? It may even give you the formula for Compton scattering upon the insistence that E= hf (or similar). I.E. using some quantum theory!

 

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.

I am sorry you are under the false impression that I need help. It is you that are confused with the difference between classical and quantum.

 

I do not see why you are finding it so hard to understand that 'h' means quantum.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ajb

[Theoretical]

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]

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.

So quantum mechanics?

[Theoretical]

all predicted and derived from classical mechanics.

[DrP]

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

I am looking forward to see the derivations of quantum mechanics by classical means - The math may be over my head, but I will look forward to reading through and trying to understand it.

[Theoretical]

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.

[ajb]

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

Exactly, so quantum theory is here in some form or another. There is no way to get, for example, the energy spectra of the hydrogen atom using classical EM theory.

 

all predicted and derived from classical mechanics.

As a challenge, can you derive the energy spectrum of the quantum harmonic oscillator (in 1-d) using only classical mechanics? Can you even just calculate the ground state?

Edited August 27, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

Wrong. Feeding hf or h/wavelength into an equation absolutely does not suggest quantization.

 

Where does h appear in Maxwell's equations, or any other classical theory?

 

 

hf is energy.

 

Energy of what?

[Theoretical]

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.

[ajb]

All derived from only from classical mechanics.

You keep saying that, but we all doubt it for some very simple reasons.

 

 

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

We await such experiments.

[Theoretical]

 

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.

[ajb]

This proves there is no quantized photon.

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.

[Theoretical]

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."

[Klaynos]

*sigh*

[ajb]

And of course we can forget about other non-classical phenomena like squeezing?

 

And the fact that QED has been tested experimentally to some huge degree of accuracy, including its role in the standard model at CERN.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ajb

[Theoretical]

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.

[ajb]

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!!

Even without antibunching we have other non-classical phenomena that are observed and again QED has proved to be a good theory on many different levels. The notion of photons is not going to disappear quite yet.

 

 

The truth is that the wanna be physicist are making such claims, while the notable real physicist stay clear of such claims.

Okay, so can you point to professional physicists that are actually disputing the existence of photons? Out of those, can you point to those that dispute the many antibunching experiments? Can you point to those that have managed to explain photon antibunching classically and have had that result published in a mainstream journal?

 

With any experimental result the best you can do is say that the results are consistent with some model or models or not. The mathematical claim is that antibunching cannot be explained using classical electrodynamics. It may be possible to further 'fudge' that with something that is not classical electromagnetism, but the simplest solutions seems to be that the EM field dances to a quantum beat.

[swansont]

Shorter packet bursts have more bandwidth. This is basic well known established spectral analysis.

 

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

[studiot]

It would be helpful (and have probably saved nearly 100 contentious posts) if you had commenced your presentation by properly defining your terms.

 

I do not know what you mean by 'Classical Mechanics', so please explain????????

 

It is of interest to observe that quantisation is inherent in the (pure) mathematics of periodic phenomena and even the flagship Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can be derived entirely from pure mathematical considerations.

 

Consequently what also do you mean by Quantum Mechanics?

 

Proper setting out of your meaning for these terms is essential if you wish to consider them in opposition, since for most physicists they are not.

[Theoretical]

 

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

[studiot]

 

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

 

 

That old excuse again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I can identifiy at least six lines of questioning that remain unanswered above from the most fundamental (how can you introduce the concept of a photon and plancks constant yet claim this is classical) to the more involved and complex. If the OP does not start answering those questions, and providing details of his contended experiment then the staff will almost certainly move towards thread closure. Mere repetitions of the original idea - and claims that questions have been answered already will not suffice and will hasten thread lockdown. Claims of academic dogmatism and establishment closemindedness will also go down pretty badly.

 

no need to reply to this moderation. The OP's next post should highlight at least one of the counter-arguments above and answer it.