Mordred

Good catch, I posted it as an example setup, it's def not a professional paper. More likely some lab student. It was the test setup I wanted primarily to show, something that's also not expensive.

Here is some tests you can do at home. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjABahUKEwi-4uvDmcvHAhUBlYgKHUuHC6I&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjsharkey.org%2Fprojects%2Fphysics%2Flab2.pdf&rct=j&q=Planck%20constant%20lab%20tests&ei=UgbgVb7xKIGqogTLjq6QCg&usg=AFQjCNGVgi0EDlaRwB2aVZNOdSC76usO5g&sig2=zpy32IPekIT1oDkWgJVGxg http://www.foothill.edu/~marasco/4dlabs/4dlab4.html http://demoweb.physics.ucla.edu/content/experiment-6-photoelectric-effect http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCUQFjAEahUKEwiP37z6msvHAhUPNIgKHTmyD20&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2Flululiu%2FPublic%2Fpixx%2Fnot-pixx%2Fphotoelectric.pdf&rct=j&q=Planck%20constant%20lab%20tests&ei=0QfgVc-yKY_ooAS55L7oBg&usg=AFQjCNF0r6Dp5SCXCEGPCc_G1SsI249UPw&sig2=3AJTR40TLJ9S4S8eiyxLhw keep in mind these are basic setups.

Why don't you get off your high horse. I provided you the tools to improve your model. Langrene and Hamilton's can be done strictly classical. I mentioned before your mathematics is not up to a sufficient level to overthrow QM. Go ahead waste your time. Make your video, without the proper level of math no professional will even consider it. Considering there is hundreds of varying experiments in fine tuning the Planck constant. It's part of the university curriculum. I've done 2 variations of those tests myself. Is it possible to mathematically eliminate the Planck constant. Yes it is. However with your attitude I don't feel inclined to show you how to use the Langrene and Hamilton's to do so. Best part is I even know the specific peer reviewed professional paper, that covers this in the numerous related earlier experiments relating to fine tuning the Planck constant. They then mathematically eliminate h. Your loss. ( Your far too insulting to waste my time trying to help, particularly since you refuse to understand the tools I've provided) You claim photons don't exist. Yet you expect to prove this via one type of experiment. Roflmao. Good luck with that. Be well here is a counter experiment for you. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever Let's see pros and cons between the two experiments. Yours doesn't conform to other experiments, done by thousands of PH.Ds -mathematics sub par. Their experiment does conform to numerous other tests, has the related detailed mathematics. Done by professionals. Who do you think will get the most attention? Get the picture? But I guess that's just us being on our high horse right? Got it have a good day

So what? I don't care if you use packets in discrete units of quanta instead of photons or not. This doesn't make any difference in the formulas I provided in any of the articles I posted. This brings up the key issue How do you expect a macro experiment to discount the need for the Planck constant? Your test has no where near the level of precision for that You haven't provided a single solution to particle-wave duality. As far as I know no such solution exists to seperate the two.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I just mentioned RMS which is used for sinusoidal waveforms and involves the Poynting vector. You never included the RMS formula nor the Poynting vector. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~stte/phy114S09/lectures/lect18.pdf

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. In one of your earlier posts you mentioned RMS. Which involves alternating current

Included is permittivity, propogation delay etc

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? The first article I posted to you shows how transverse waves are described in QM terms. Which you didn't bother reading

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 Ask yourself this question. If you can't convince us lowly forum members. How do you expect to convince the professional community?

Some examples of Hamiltonian usage is various wave functions including the Poynting vector https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CC4QFjAGahUKEwiaksaVxMjHAhWElIgKHZjpDOk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk%2F~bds10%2Faqp%2Flec16-17_compressed.pdf&rct=j&q=Poynting%20vector%20Hamiltonian&ei=YaDeVdrdBYSpogSY07PIDg&usg=AFQjCNFw8zpV4TBDc4wy45gHseO_CLjwbA&sig2=Ga9mrPxG3cA9UZkxW8yTAQ

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/

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

TBH I like the majority of Canadian bills. Easy to tell em apart. Most ppl don't know there is also a texture difference between bills for the blind. As a Canuck I find US money bland as well

For example What dataset did you get the 169 Ghz signal from? The others have already mentioned the other relevant questions. It's impossible to tell what your overall goal is as well as providing a relevant direction of study without decent references and relevant descriptives.

Looking over this thread, I'm having a difficult time piece mealing where your getting your numbers from. However you should look at a more reliable methodology. Is this post. He includes the related formulas, as well as references. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90189-neutrino-mass-from-fermi-dirac-statistics/#entry881547

Are you aware water dissociates at high temperature, roughly 2200 degrees Celsius? In order for water to be stable the universe must be cooler than that value. Star fusion has a far far higher core temperature. For example our Sun has a core temperature of roughly 14 million Kelvin. Water cannot stay stable at those temperatures. So water cannot be created in stars, and can only form with stability when the universe cools sufficient enough to allow stability. To make matters worse electromagnetic currents also dissociate water.http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c08/e3-13-03-01.pdf

As far as memory retention, and who learns what?. Some of the factors include interest and due diligence to that interest. Either way this subject isn't particularly a physics type problem. More neurobiology and psychological

Lol you need to properly define the problem set first. Then figure out what research is available

Any ideas how to write What? You didn't include anything other than the reason

I was in flight but a single photon detector was requested. http://www.toshiba.eu/eu/Cambridge-Research-Laboratory/Quantum-Information-Group/Quantum-Devices/Photon-Number-Resolving-Detector/ There are other single quanta/photon detectors. They are fairly new on the market. I certainly don't own one.