Experiment: QM fails, CM succeeds

[Theoretical]

moderator, i've already answered those questions too many times already. If they can't understand it then I don't have anymore time to answer it. If closing the thread is what you want to do, then do it.

 

If you want to pretend that I did not answer the questions about photon and h in a clear concise fashion, then what a pity. Maybe you're seeing what you want to see because I threaten Quantum Mechanics.

 

Here's a quick copy and paste of emr momentum using charge, not an antenna, derived from classical mechanics, again in units of hf. Again, the reason for using hf is for your convenience so that you can see the classical mechanics gets the same answer as quantum mechanics. Again the classical mechanics predicts the correct amount of momentum. hf is joules.

 

 

Using charge to derive emr momentum from classical mechanics, and hf energy:

 

F=q*v*B

v is speed of light:

F=q*c*B

 

calculate the charges traverse peak velocity from one h*f amount of energy:

E=(m*v^2)/2=h*f

solve for v

v=sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m) m/s

convert from peak to rms (root mean square) since charge oscillates back & force transversely

v=sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2) rms

 

 

calculate traverse force:

a=v/t

t=1/f

a=v*f

a=(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*f

F=m*a

F=m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f) rms

 

 

calculate emr B-field:

F=q*v*B

solving for B

B=F/q/c

B=(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c rms

 

transversely oscillating charge causes forward force:

F=q*v*B

F=q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c

a=F/m

a=(q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m

v=a*t

v=((q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m)*t

t=1/f

v=((q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m)/f

p=m*v

p=m*(((q*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2))*(m*(sqrt(2)*sqrt((h*f)/m)/sqrt(2)*f))/q/c)/m)/f)

Simplifies to:

p=h*(f/c)

Convert from frequency to wavelength:

p=h/λ

 

This derivation uses one wavelength to convert the traverse oscillations to forward momentum, but it doesn't matter how many wavelengths you use, as the result is the same mathematically.

 

I don't think you people appreciate what has been given to you...

Edited August 27, 2015 by Theoretical

[studiot]

 

F=q*c*B

 

 

 

So are you claiming that a massive particle of charge is moving at the speed of light?

[Theoretical]

 

So are you claiming that a massive particle of charge is moving at the speed of light?

c is the electromagnetic wave traveling at the speed of light.

 

Honestly, studiot, just wait for the video lol.

[studiot]

 

c is the electromagnetic wave traveling at the speed of light.

 

 

 

So it is not a standing wave?

 

 

E=(m*v^2)/2=h*f

 

 

You said a couple of lines earlier that v = c so what is this v?

Edited August 27, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

I never said shirt packets *equals* a photon lol. The so-called photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy. The atomic world emits such packets of energy as a decaying burst.

 

You did, though. You argue against photons because of the bandwidth and spectral analysis. Why mention it if it doesn't apply?

[Theoretical]

By Joe I've spotted the problem lol. If Albert Einstein was alive today, would he be hanging out at public science forms? No! Einstein exchanged letters with selective people. Wow what a vast spectrum of minds in the science community with only a few in the gamma region, unfortunately.

 

For anyone who gets it, contact me in private.

See my profile for details. Contact me at YouTube.

[Mordred]

By Joe I've spotted the problem lol. If Albert Einstein was alive today, would he be hanging out at public science forms? No! Einstein exchanged letters with selective people. Wow what a vast spectrum of minds in the science community with only a few in the gamma region, unfortunately.

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?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

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

You're full of hot air. You can't even show the math that predicts the experiment in this thread. How laughable you think Quantum Mechanics can predict a completely non-quantized experiment. For ages people with your level of mentality have tried to quantize Relativity lol.

 

Not a single person in this thread has shown one error in my math. Your are a blatant liar.

The closest anyone has come to attempting to debunk my math was the guy who wrote in error that force equals voltage lmao. Go away.

[Mordred]

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

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

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?

Stop the lies. I already said why the equation uses h and said it doesn't have to. It could easily be in units of 1 joule instead of hf. Wake up. The equation is derived correctly. No need for poynting vector. The equation correctly predicts the momentum of light.

[Mordred]

 

 

Included is permittivity, propogation delay etc

[Theoretical]

Because it's not quantum mechanics. It's the laughable attempt of a few desperate physicists trying to get quantum mechanics to explain anything else outside the atomic world. And it doesn't work. You don't even know what you're talking about. DC current is not a traverse wave lol.

[Mordred]

Stop the lies. I already said why the equation uses h and said it doesn't have to. It could easily be in units of 1 joule instead of hf. Wake up. The equation is derived correctly. No need for poynting vector. The equation correctly predicts the momentum of light.

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

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

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.

Have you ever heard of rms? It says that. Please read.

 

In what direction? That's basis classical electrodynamics. When the charge is forced left of the propagating field, the force is forward. When the charge is forced right, obviously it is forced right because the propagating be field is oppositely polarized compared to when the charge was forced left. So we have an opposite polarized field, and the charge is traveling in the opposite direction, we have two negatives multiplied together equal the same direction, which is why the charge always is forced this effect is easily seen in analyzed in in Tenna software forward in the same direction as the propagating field. Very simple. This effect is easily seen and analyzed in in antenna software.

[Mordred]

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

[Theoretical]

Yes it is. in the above equation you'll see the rms conversion of sqrt(2). It's unitless of course.

[Mordred]

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

[Theoretical]

Above, as in the top of page 6.

[Mordred]

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

[Theoretical]

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

You mean like a like a big photo of a guy using the right hand rule pointing to direction? Never mind, don't answer lol. Anyhow, I keep telling everyone that this is a copy and paste, the details will be in the video and paper

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

I'm well aware of probability density. But I don't think you get it yet. There is no single quantized photo particle. It's a wave. The probability aspect is pointless with emr. ...That's why you will never find the photon particle going through one of the slits lol. It doesn't exist. It's a wave.

[Mordred]

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

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

photo=photon

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

No it doesn't because it's not necessary. As stated it's always a forward force.

[Mordred]

photo=photon

 

No it doesn't because it's not necessary. As stated it's always a forward force.

Not necessarily. Particularly with reflected power, never seen an antenna lose transmitting power? Through impedance mismatch? Edited August 28, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

You should study this a bit more before posting on it. It's pretty simple lol.

[Mordred]

You should study this a bit more before posting on it. It's pretty simple lol.

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