Experiment: QM fails, CM succeeds

[Theoretical]

OK so F acts on an electric charge. that is in accordance with Lorenz.

 

Where is this charge coming from and going to that it forms a current?

The current comes from the electromagnetic wave, which is an oscillating traverse force. It's how antennas work.

[studiot]

 

The current comes from the electromagnetic wave, which is an oscillating traverse force. It's how antennas work

 

So B is not steady?

 

Your equation does not say this.

 

And what is v the velocity of?

[Theoretical]

iPhone dictation correction:

traverse=transverse

 

So B is not steady?

 

Your equation does not say this.

 

And what is v the velocity of?

B along with everything is in rms, root mean square.

[studiot]

 

B along with everything is in rms, root mean square.

 

 

That did not answer my question.

 

Shall I leave the second question until you have answered the first?

[Theoretical]

 

BTW you can remove the three duplicate lines since I removed the scaling.

Remove these duplicate lines:

"Scale to one photon per wavelength:

F=(V/R)*L*B

Substitute B for V/L/c"

v is the speed of light.

 

 

v is the speed of light

 

So B is not steady?

 

Your equation does not say this.

 

And what is v the velocity of?

Of course. B-field is the magnetic field in the electromagnetic wave.

If it makes it easier on you, the electromagnetic wave causes transverse current oscillations. Such transverse current oscillations causes a forward force, which is what electromagnetic momentum is. Of course all of this along with much more will be detailed in the video.

[studiot]

F = BLv

 

This is the equation that describes the force on a conductor moving through a constant magnetic field of strength B with velocity v.

 

It is also the equation for the force on a stationary conductor which endures a constant magnetic field moving past with velocity v.

 

What is the correct equation for the force on a stationary conductor enduring a varying magnetic field B(t) (where B is a function of time) ?

[Theoretical]

F = BLv

 

This is the equation that describes the force on a conductor moving through a constant magnetic field of strength B with velocity v.

 

It is also the equation for the force on a stationary conductor which endures a constant magnetic field moving past with velocity v.

 

What is the correct equation for the force on a stationary conductor enduring a varying magnetic field B(t) (where B is a function of time) ?

No. BLv in my equations s a voltage on the wire, not a force.

[imatfaal]

F =/= B.l.v

[kg.m.s-2] =/= [kg.s-2.A-1] [m] [m.s-1]

 

I don't like that equation

 

It looks very similar to

 

EMF = BLv

 

ie the voltage/emf caused by a conductor moving in a magnetic field

 

EMF = B.l.v

[kg·m2·s−3·A−1] = [kg.s-2.A-1] [m] [m.s-1]

 

But force on the conductor is not the same as electromotive force on the charge carrier

 

edit - cross posted with Theoretical and missed out the equations rather than the dimensional analysis

Edited August 26, 2015 by imatfaal
xpost

[studiot]

 

No. BLv in my equations s a voltage on the wire, not a force.

 

 

Yes that was my mistake as I was about to rush off.

 

It was not the equation we started discussing.

[Theoretical]

 

Yes that was my mistake as I was about to rush off.

 

It was not the equation we started discussing.

No problem. It happens to the best of us. The derivation requires both equations:

 

V=v*B*L

F=I*L*B

[swansont]

... In the other thread where I derived photon momentum from classical mechanics, I use a classical radio wave antenna.

 

And that's why it was wrong. You got the free-space answer, but you derived it in a medium, where the photon's momentum changes by n, the index of refraction.

[Theoretical]

 

And that's why it was wrong. You got the free-space answer, but you derived it in a medium, where the photon's momentum changes by n, the index of refraction.

What lol? What makes you think it can't get the correct answers in a medium? Have you tried? Of course not. It would work. A medium introduces different of permittivity in permeability. This is well understood and used in antenna theory.

Forgive my iPhone's dictation.

[Mordred]

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

Edited August 27, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

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

So you're suggesting quantum mechanics can solve the macro scale magnetic loop experiment explained in this thread? This is not the only place I've asked the question to physicist who are knowledgeable in quantum mechanics. You're the only person who's suggested it's possible. I've never seen any problem like this in all of my quantum mechanics books. Can you please provide a simple example?

[Mordred]

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/

Edited August 27, 2015 by Mordred

[ajb]

It doesn't matter if you plug in 7 million joulse per wavelength or hf or whatever. It will give he saying calculated results as quantum mechanics equation. Got it?

So you are saying that you can get

 

[math]\lambda - \lambda' = \left( \frac{h}{mc} \right)(1- \cos \theta)[/math]

 

from equations that do not have h in them?

 

As for the QED NIST issue, I would highly recommend you contact them because they know the experiments inside and out, while you do not. They said QED needs to be recalibrated.

Other groups have of course shown similar results for similar things. I still at this stage believe the issue is one of how to make careful calculations of the spectra of such large electron atoms within QED. This is not an easy task.

 

I say this because QED has been tested to some huge degree of accuracy.

 

One regime that has not been tested and hardly theoretically explored in QED with very strong fields, that is outside of the usual parameters that allow perturbation theory to work well. With advances in laser technology, it maybe possible that we will soon be exploring QED without photons!

Edited August 27, 2015 by ajb

[Mordred]

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

[ajb]

Again the qm assumption is in "scale to one photon..." Ignore this if you like you still will be wrong.

I see in the derivation that E = h f is indeed used when "scale to one photon". So the derivation (forgetting any other possible problems) is at best semi-classical.

 

The claims of being able to derive these quantum equations using purely classical arguments is bogus.

[swansont]

What lol? What makes you think it can't get the correct answers in a medium? Have you tried? Of course not. It would work. A medium introduces different of permittivity in permeability. This is well understood and used in antenna theory.

Forgive my iPhone's dictation.

 

You derived it for an antenna (a medium), but got the answer for free space.

[Theoretical]

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/

Removing the quantization from fields, deriving them from classical mechanics, and calling it quantum mechanics is outlandish.

 

For decades we've been hearing how classical mechanics cannot predict for photon moment, Compton scattering, blackbody radiation, bells test experiment, etc. Turns out that's all incorrect, because I've completed it, and it's going to be published. So for you to say classical mechanics cannot do something is wrong from my perspective because time after time I've deriving all the big ones that everyone said can't be done.

 

So regarding the experiment mentioned in this thread, there is a DC current going through the coil, which produces a magnetic D magnetic field extending far out to space. I don't think quantum mechanics has a clue how to do that.

 

Furthermore, all of my experiments at radio and visible light wavelengths have disapprove the quantum mechanics single quantized photon. Quantum mechanics is very wrong. This you will learn in due time. Just give me time to put everything together. Additionally I am in the process of doing some other experiments, which if true, will be like a supernova explosion in the academic community.

@ajb I have already addressed that too many times already. Classical mechanic correctly predicts emr momentum. The hf is for the atomic world. And yes classical mechanics can predict the atomic world, but a more time is required to derive those.

 

If you want to know the Compton scattering for a particle or object that absorbs h/λ momentum, then the classical mechanics equations results in exactly h/(m*c) * (1 - cos(a)) for dλ. Again, the so-called single photon is regarding the atomic world where hf joules is radiated in packet bursts. This packet of hf joules is by no means is a law. Sure, if you're going to have atomic matter emit emr, then in all likelihood it will result in such packet bursts, but if you emit emr through unnatural manmade means, then it is possible to emit and receive less then one hf joules. I know because I have verified this experimentally

 

 

You derived it for an antenna (a medium), but got the answer for free space.

I need derived it for free space. It can be derived for any type of medium.

iPhone dictation errors: in last sentence remove the word "need"

"So regarding the experiment mentioned in this thread, there is a DC current going through the coil, which produces a magnetic D magnetic field extending far out to space." = "So regarding the experiment mentioned in this thread, there is a DC current going through the coil, which produces a DC magnetic field extending far out to space. "

[ajb]

@ajb I have already addressed that too many times already. Classical mechanic correctly predicts emr momentum. The hf is for the atomic world. And yes classical mechanics can predict the atomic world, but a more time is required to derive those.

Where did the E= hf come from if not quantum theory? Classical theory does not have such a relation! That is why your derivations cannot be truly classical. Any claim otherwise is just wrong.

 

Your derivations maybe okay, but they cannot be completely classical.

 

The general rule is "if it's got an 'h', then it is quantum".

 

 

If you want to know the Compton scattering for a particle or object that absorbs h/λ momentum, then the classical mechanics equations results in exactly h/(m*c) * (1 - cos(a)) for dλ. Again, the so-called single photon is regarding the atomic world where hf joules is radiated in packet bursts. This packet of hf joules is by no means is a law. Sure, if you're going to have atomic matter emit emr, then in all likelihood it will result in such packet bursts, but if you emit emr through unnatural manmade means, then it is possible to emit and receive less then one hf joules. I know because I have verified this experimentally

Again, such a relation must be quantum. As you seem to know, either you quantise the radiation or you quantise the matter (or do both) to derive dλ. But you have to quantise something to get the 'h'.

 

I hope you understand our very basic objections here, which come down to how did you get 'h' form purely classical arguments?

[Theoretical]

Where did the E= hf come from if not quantum theory? Classical theory does not have such a relation! That is why your derivations cannot be truly classical. Any claim otherwise is just wrong.

 

Your derivations maybe okay, but they cannot be completely classical.

 

The general rule is "if it's got an 'h', then it is quantum".

 

 

 

Again, such a relation must be quantum. As you seem to know, either you quantise the radiation or you quantise the matter (or do both) to derive dλ. But you have to quantise something to get the 'h'.

 

I hope you understand our very basic objections here, which come down to how did you get 'h' form purely classical arguments?

You seem to be too caught up in this idea of the single photon particle. If you do not feed the single photon momentum into the Compton scattering equation, QM or CM, then of course the resulting equation will not have have h in it. All that matters is if the equation can correctly predict experimental results, and classical mechanics does that very well. Again, The equation gives you the correct value. If you want to know the scattered angle for a particle that has absorbed h/wavelength, then CM gives the well known equation, thus proving classical mechanics gives the precise exact scattered angle.

 

Please get off of h. As far as I know h is derived from experiments:

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

[Klaynos]

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.

[ajb]

You seem to be too caught up in this idea of the single photon particle.

It does not matter too much if we consider a single photon or not... the point is we have quantised something.

 

If you do not feed the single photon momentum into the Compton scattering equation, QM or CM, then of course the resulting equation will not have have h in it.

So you do not derive the dλ unless you assume something is quantised?

 

All that matters is if the equation can correctly predict experimental results, and classical mechanics does that very well.

But how can it if you do not get the right formula for Compton scattering?

 

Again, The equation gives you the correct value.

But you said it does not; ie you will not get the Compton formula for the change in wavelength.

 

If you want to know the scattered angle for a particle that has absorbed h/wavelength, then CM gives the well known equation, thus proving classical mechanics gives the precise exact scattered angle.

 

Read carefully now. You by hand put in h/wavelength. You have done is an ad-hoc fudge, or used E = hf or something equivalent. You have used quantum theory, admittedly only 'early' quantum theory following Planck and alike.

 

Please get off of h. As far as I know h is derived from experiments:

The value is derived from experiments yes. It's meaning is that it sets some action scale for which quantum theory must be applied. Any expression you write down with 'h' in it is inherently quantum.

 

Thus, you claim of using just classical mechanics must be bogus. Or at least you have not understood the difference here.

 

In particular anything that mentions photons or 'h' is quantum or maybe semi-classical, depending on details.

 

If you assume photons you are introducing qm into your classical derivation.

Exactly. Anything about photons (single or otheriwise), E= hf, wave nature of particles etc is introducing quantum ideas as various levels of sophistication. But none the less QUANTUM!

Edited August 27, 2015 by ajb

[DrP]

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.