Important experiment request: Distant single photon

[Sensei]

You discredited yourself, before you even started explaining your experiment (that you're just mentioning)..

 

So, I guess so, it's all "valid" as the rest of your claims..

 

I will give you something for consideration.

Classically current I, voltage U, charge Q, are not quantized.

But in oil drop experiment we were able to find out quantization of charge e = 1.602176565*10^-19 C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

Equations for power

P = I * U

and for energy (simply power * time):

E = I*t * U = Q * U

 

Q is quantized in chunks 1e, 2e, 3e, ...., 10^18 e and so on. There can be 1 electron, 2 electrons, or billion electrons, but not half electron.

 

Kinetic energy of single electron in wire in your radiowave emitting device:

E.K. = 1e * U

 

That's what electron could release at maximum upon acting with matter.

Typically heating it. But can also emit visible light (like it happens in LED, lightbulb, laser).

 

If source electrons in battery (or other source of electric power) flowing through wire, through your radiowave emitting element, were quantized,

how come emitted by them photons won't be quantized either.. ?

You are concentrating on detection of RF, instead of also looking at source of energy that you're using to producing your RF photons.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Sensei

[Theoretical]

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

That's true and completely beside the point. In the PEE the material does absorb the light. It just doesn't involve a transition between two bound states of the atom, so there is no spectral line.

[Theoretical]

!

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.

[Strange]

If admins move anything that questions the standard model to a speculative area, which is what you did

 

Yep "contradicting accepted science" = "speculation". How hard is that?

 

 

I will not participate in discussions at this forum given is closed-minded nature

 

How is it closed minded to give you your own special area to discus your ideas?

Edited August 20, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

 

 

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

[Prometheus]

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

 

Here's a good one.

[dimreepr]

http://www.scienceforums.net

[Strange]

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

 

I think you have been banned from all the (other) good ones.

[Phi for All]

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

We're a resource for students, and we need to have the mainstream sections free from inaccurate or unsubstantiated information (you said yourself you're still putting this all together). This is why we have a Speculations section.

 

It does sound like you aren't ready for the type of reviews we do on new ideas. We aren't pushovers that require little rigor, but you should be able to find plenty of sites that are. Be warned that you'll get equal amounts of praise and ridicule, in a manner that is far less civil than we require here.

 

Best of luck elsewhere.

[swansont]

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.

 

Why does the link path matter to the discussion? Basically you're in room 177 instead of room 121. I have no idea how that affects the discussion itself.

 

Sounds more like you're offering up a convenient excuse to leave, rather than have to discuss actual science and present evidence and a coherent model, like the rest of physics does.

 

edit: oops, xposted with the modnote and thread closure.