Experiment: QM fails, CM succeeds

[Theoretical]

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!

[swansont]

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.

True of lots of experiments. Hold the presses: the sun is rising in the east today!

 

Your basic premise is flawed: the issue isn't that classical mechanics explains nothing.

[Sensei]

You will never convert Einstein's relativity to quantum mechanics because that is not the nature of the universe.

Special relativity is used all the time in quantum physics. During f.e. calculations of decays of unstable isotopes, calculation of particle collisions in particle accelerators in CERN etc.

 

A circular wire coil, preferably made of material with high resistivity

If you have high resistance, your current (and thus strength of created magnetic field) will be very small..

I=U/R

 

for U=12 V, R = 100 ohm, I = 0.12 A, which means Q=0.12 C in second, which means 7.4898*10^17 electrons per second.

 

Coils are typically made of Copper, because it has very small resistance!

To be able to pass as large current as possible.

To have as large magnetic field as possible.

 

for U=12 V, R = 0.1 ohm, I = 120 A, which means Q=120 C in second, which means 7.4898*10^20 electrons per second.

 

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.

Scientists at CERN, while using superconducting electromagnets have to fight with what you described, as it can cause serious damage to devices.

 

Once the main source of power is turned off, and coil is starting making its own current, there should be secondary circuit turned on,

with elements that have high resistance, such as lightbulbs, or heating elements in water/oil,

that will convert stored energy to photons in visible range, or heat, that will be easily to cool down.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Sensei

[Theoretical]

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.

[John Cuthber]

"A circular wire coil, preferably made of material with high resistivity so as to immediately quench the electrical current."
No.

[ajb]

I've already had academic scientist contact me saying I am correct that classical mechanics can explain these effects.

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.

[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"

[Theoretical]

 

Clarification, academic community has not solved the photoelectric effect using only classical mechanics. They *can* use a semi classical model which uses classical and quantum mechanics. In a video I will go over every detail showing how *only* classical mechanics can derive the entire photoelectric effect.

[swansont]

Clarification, academic community has not solved the photoelectric effect using only classical mechanics. They *can* use a semi classical model which uses classical and quantum mechanics. In a video I will go over every detail showing how *only* classical mechanics can derive the entire photoelectric effect.

 

Why not just post the work here?

[Theoretical]

 

Why not just post the work here?

I will when the video is done, but I'm not going to paste my chicken scratching. Something like that deserves well documentation and a classroom type presentation only found in a video. Otherwise I get an onslaught of questions that from my point of you are insulting in ridiculous. No offense intended to anyone. There's nothing like a chalkboard classroom presentation, IMO.

 

 

Doing some history documentation and came across this Wikipedia quote:

 

"Although Classical electromagnetism predicted that the wavelength of scattered rays should be equal to the initial wavelength,[3] multiple experiments had found that the wavelength of the scattered rays was longer (corresponding to lower energy) than the initial wavelength."

 

Yes of course academic community believes CM can't correctly derive the Compton scattering equation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

[swansont]

I will when the video is done, but I'm not going to paste my chicken scratching. Something like that deserves well documentation and a classroom type presentation only found in a video. Otherwise I get an onslaught of questions that from my point of you are insulting in ridiculous. No offense intended to anyone. There's nothing like a chalkboard classroom presentation, IMO.

 

 

Except maybe a journal article. You know, something written down. And peer-reviewed, regardless of how insulting one finds that.

[Phi for All]

I will when the video is done, but I'm not going to paste my chicken scratching. Something like that deserves well documentation and a classroom type presentation only found in a video. Otherwise I get an onslaught of questions that from my point of you are insulting in ridiculous.

 

You challenge mainstream science, and then consider the "onslaught of questions" ridiculous and insulting?! I understand now why you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder for someone supposedly interested in a rigorous approach to the subject.

 

You sure haven't convinced me to invest time in a video though. I can make a quicker assessment of what you're saying (or mostly NOT saying) using the written word and equations. I would have to blindly trust you to make a video worth my while. I don't. So far you've been petulant and uninspiring. You don't provide evidence, and you don't answer very many questions posed to you. That makes it a real chore to discuss science with you, on this science discussion site.

 

Just sayin'.

[ajb]

In a video I will go over every detail showing how *only* classical mechanics can derive the entire photoelectric effect.

Write it up and submit to to peer review. That is what the rest of us do when we have an interesting new result.

 

I know of journals that would be interested in this (assuming it is correct). I will also add that you do not need to be associated with any academic institution or hold any advanced degrees. If the paper is good enough it will get past the initial editorial stage and then be assessed by two or more experts in the subject.

Edited August 23, 2015 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

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 will find that the radiated energy equals the amount of stored energy that was originally in the DC coil.

 

 

No. You will not, because much of it is dissipated in the transistors and as heat in the coil.

 

It hardly matters, but it shows that you have not fully though this through.

[Theoretical]

No. You will not, because much of it is dissipated in the transistors and as heat in the coil.

 

It hardly matters, but it shows that you have not fully though this through.

No, real measurements and Spice sims clearly show high speed transistors dissipated no appreciable energy that goes into the magnetic field.

Write it up and submit to to peer review. That is what the rest of us do when we have an interesting new result.

 

I know of journals that would be interested in this (assuming it is correct). I will also add that you do not need to be associated with any academic institution or hold any advanced degrees. If the paper is good enough it will get past the initial editorial stage and then be assessed by two or more experts in the subject.

Thanks for the help. I'll send you a copy before sending the paper. Yes I can assure you the classical mechanics math is straightforward and correct. I also have numerical analysis that show correct results.

 

 

Except maybe a journal article. You know, something written down. And peer-reviewed, regardless of how insulting one finds that.

Thanks. Are you referring to the Compton scattering, photon momentum, etc math derived from purely classical mechanics?

[John Cuthber]

No, real measurements and Spice sims clearly show high speed transistors dissipated no appreciable energy that goes into the magnetic field.

 

Plenty of blown transistors show that to be wrong in the real world, though, as I said, it hardly matters.

If you had talked of a superconducting coil and a superconducting capacitor then the only loss would be from radiation.

 

Good luck finding a classical superconductor or a classical transistor. (well, I did say it didn't matter )

[swansont]

 

Thanks. Are you referring to the Compton scattering, photon momentum, etc math derived from purely classical mechanics?

 

I was referring to how new information is disseminated in science in general.

[Theoretical]

Plenty of blown transistors show that to be wrong in the real world, though, as I said, it hardly matters.

If you had talked of a superconducting coil and a superconducting capacitor then the only loss would be from radiation.

 

Good luck finding a classical superconductor or a classical transistor. (well, I did say it didn't matter )

A superconducting coil would be going in the wrong direction in terms of this experiment. At high rate of change appreciable standing waves are created in the wire loop. It is an RL circuit. The RL time constant decreases as you increase resistance, which means the standing wave is dissipated at a faster rate with higher resistance. Most of the energy loss is in the magnetic field that is near the wire, but that can be decreased by increasing the wire diameter, and of course increasing the resistivity is well. A simple method to achieve this is by soldering thousands of small resistors in series together forming dozens of loops connected together in parallel, with each loop having dozens of transistors spread throughout each loop connected to a high-speed photodiode which turns all the transistors off with a single light pulse, but that is an overkill since the goal is merely to verify that the static magnetic field collapses, thereby demonstrating that the emitted electromagnetic far field can come from space traveling inward toward the electric charges.

...as predicted by classical mechanics.

[ajb]

...as predicted by classical mechanics.

As predicted by classical electrodynamics.

 

Okay, so what does quantum electrodynamics predict? Can you tell the difference (if any) using your experiment.

[Theoretical]

As predicted by classical electrodynamics.

 

Okay, so what does quantum electrodynamics predict? Can you tell the difference (if any) using your experiment.

I'm pretty sure classical electrodynamics is part of classical mechanics. Right?

 

That's the million dollar question that has been asked to hundreds of physicist who specialize in quantum mechanics and QED. So far nothing.

 

Good luck finding a classical superconductor or a classical transistor. (well, I did say it didn't matter )

Well in another thread I showed the math deriving photon momentum from electromotive force from classical mechanics that predicts the precise equation p=h/wavelength. I am convinced that classical mechanics will predict all known experiments. So far CM has derived the math equations for photon momentum, compton scattering, blackbody radiation, mass inertia, E=mc^2, Relativity, de Broglie wavelength. Even Bells test experiment.

[ajb]

I'm pretty sure classical electrodynamics is part of classical mechanics. Right?

Semantics I guess, but I would think of classical electrodynamics as classical field theory rather than mechanics. That said, people do use mechanics to mean particles and fields.

 

 

That's the million dollar question that has been asked to hundreds of physicist who specialize in quantum mechanics and QED. So far nothing.

For a lot of situations the corrections due to quantising the EM field are going to be tiny. I expect that to be the case with your classical experiment. The classical result work very well.

 

So what is the point?

[Klaynos]

Well in another thread I showed the math deriving photon momentum from electromotive force from classical mechanics that predicts the precise equation p=h/wavelength.

Which required a fudge (assume photons I think you said). Don't state things as if they were unchallenged it doesn't give a good impression.

[Theoretical]

... In the other thread where I derived photon momentum from classical mechanics, I use a classical radio wave antenna. In the video I will show how to derive photon momentum from electric charge instead of antenna theory, of course classical mechanics, because it seems most physicist are not so familiar with antenna theory.

For a lot of situations the corrections due to quantising the EM field are going to be tiny. I expect that to be the case with your classical experiment. The classical result work very well.

 

So what is the point?

Well first off QM can't even predict the experiment in this thread, but the point of deriving qm equations from classical mechanics is to show that classical mechanics gets the precise correct equations, not close enough equations. Furthermore, classical mechanics shows a world more detail as to what is happening with the charges and electromagnetic waves. If that's not enough, I have found that what I temporarily call a CM2 theory is predicting exactly what the electric field and what gravity is.

 

As for electromagnetism been quantized, my experiments at radio and visible light wavelengths clearly shown that is completely incorrect. This is an entirely different topic, which I've gone into in other thread.

 

Which required a fudge (assume photons I think you said). Don't state things as if they were unchallenged it doesn't give a good impression.

What? It did not require any fudge! The equation of coarse needs to know the intensity of the light in order to predict the momentum of the electromagnetism,.period. As clearly stated numerous times the unitless factor was dividing watts by watts so the equation would know the intensity of the electromagnetism. Also as stated numerous times, this equation can be plugged into an antenna program such as Nick that clearly shows the photon momentum. And of course the neck equation needs to know the emr intensity.

in case you still don't understand it, the watts / watts was to set the equation into one hf amount of energy per wavelength. You can have the equation and solve the momentum for any amount of light intensity you want. The QM equation is for one photon, so by plugging one photon into the classical mechanics equation we Proof that classical mechanics gives the exact sam calculated results.

[ajb]

Well first off QM can't even predict the experiment in this thread...

In principle or is this just a practical issue?

 

...but the point of deriving qm equations from classical mechanics is to show that classical mechanics gets the precise correct equations, not close enough equations.

You mean equations that allow you to make predictions that agree well with nature taking into account the experimental accuracies and domain of applicability?

 

For a lot of situations you can forget the corrections due to QED, not always though. For example you get a reasonable agreement of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom using the Schrödinger equation. You get a bit better agreement using the Dirac equation, but there is something that this relativistic improvement does not answer; the Lamb shift. Other than ad-hoc corrections, the Lamb shift is best understood as a correction due to QED. I would add the Lamb shift to the list of results that do require the photon, or at least a quantisation of the EM field.

 

 

Furthermore, classical mechanics shows a world more detail as to what is happening with the charges and electromagnetic waves.

Classical electromagnetic theory works pretty well for a wide range of phenomena and it also works well 'coupled' to standard quantum mechanics. We all agree.

 

If that's not enough, I have found that what I temporarily call a CM2 theory is predicting exactly what the electric field and what gravity is.

You mean how to model these fields. There is no meaningful answer to 'what they are'.

 

As for electromagnetism been quantized, my experiments at radio and visible light wavelengths clearly shown that is completely incorrect. This is an entirely different topic, which I've gone into in other thread.

We disagree that conclusion. You have to also take into account all the other evidence that photons are realised in nature. QED has enjoyed huge success with its predictions; something like accuracy to ten parts in a billion. It remains one of the most tested theories ever.

Edited August 26, 2015 by ajb

[Theoretical]

@ajb

 

It seemed to me that quantum mechanics can't predict the experiment in this thread because it's nothing close to the atomic world.

 

I'm saying classical mechanics can predict all known experiments, and can derive all known equations. For example classical mechanics derives the Compton scattering equation, so according to academic community classical mechanics correctly predicts Compton scattering experiments. Again, we're not talking about closing enough calculations. We're talking about exact agreement with quantum mechanics, except that classical mechanics shows what is happening on the atomic scale.

 

QED is not predicting certain experiments. There's a company that for over three years has shown QED cannot correctly predict experiments of extremely ionized atoms.

 

Regarding CM2 predicting what electric field is, it's showing its a different type of electromagnetism with fourth dimensional traverse oscillations. And gravity, CM2 is showing that it is fourth dimensional radiation which causes nonlinearities in space. So yes, CM2 is showing in detail what the electric field and gravity are.

 

Well you can't say you disagree with my conclusion regarding my radio and visible light experiments which show there is no single quantized photon because those experiments have not been released yet. Furthermore, I have addressed everything you and others have thrown at me in regards to any possible evidence of the single photon.

that is, the single *quantized* photon.