Classical mathematical derivation of photon momentum

[Theoretical]

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.

[swansont]

There's absolutely no Jerry rigging required to derive this equation.

Sure there is. Right here:

 

Scale to one photon per wavelength:

Justify that assumption

 

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

 

Where does V = vBL come from?

 

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.

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

[Theoretical]

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. :/

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to choose what replies to listen to in your threads. Ignoring evidence against your ideas is not allowed in our speculation forum, if you want to continue posting here pleass review our rules, speculation guidelines and follow them.

 

 

Do not reply to this modnote, report it if you dissagree.

[Theoretical]

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.

[studiot]

 

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

 

 

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?

[Theoretical]

 

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.

[studiot]

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

Edited August 20, 2015 by studiot

[Phi for All]

Maybe they're government thugs. :/

 

That's swansont, all right. Physicist/thug/suppressor for the US Naval Observatory. What would someone who keeps our atomic clocks running know about precision?

[imatfaal]

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

[Theoretical]

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.

[imatfaal]

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

 

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.

 

 

[Theoretical]

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

[imatfaal]

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

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.

 

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 or at least seem to have conflate two together!).

[studiot]

 

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

 

 

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.

Edited August 20, 2015 by studiot

[Theoretical]

 

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.

[studiot]

 

I=V/R

 

 

 

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

[Phi for All]

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

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

Anyway, with those with at least a half brain but not quiet full:

 

 

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

!

Moderator Note

Seriously, we attack the idea here, not the person. Please stop with the ad hom attacks. NOBODY is treating YOU this way.

[Theoretical]

 

 

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.

[studiot]

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.

[Theoretical]

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?

[studiot]

Petulence is no substitute for well reasoned, temperate presentation

[Phi for All]

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?

 

We normally stop ignorance with knowledge. In the case of "YouTube swamping", ignoring it works also. You won't be swamping SFN with anything.

 

You cry mockery, but nobody mocked your ideas at all. We've been asking clarifying questions, and then trying to decipher your defensive and rude replies, which are mostly ungracious and have no actual answers.

[Theoretical]

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 Edited August 20, 2015 by Phi for All
link to YouTube channel deleted by Mod

[Phi for All]

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

Congratulations on joining our forum and ignoring the rules you agreed to! We were created, of course, to serve only you, so your behavior has been simply exemplary! We welcome your muddy feet anytime!

 

I'm just surprised someone like you hasn't come along sooner to correct all these obviously flawed scientific concepts, even if they do work.