Please add a Theoretical physics section

[Theoretical]

Well classical mechanics is not theoretical, but what I've done with CM is unknown so far. Therefore some may call it theoretical. The mechanics is straightforward from my point of view, but of course I spent a long time analyzing it. So I think a classroom type video presentation of the CM photon momentum and a whole lot more will make things very clear for everyone.

 

One disagreement we have is that h*f is quantized. My radio and visible wavelength experiments, which will be in the video, will offer extremely strong evidence the single quantized photon is not what everyone thinks it is. One can call that theoretical if they wish, but in all honesty I can't, given the amount of time spent on experiments and math.

[Mordred]

Then the problem is the math doesn't match what your claiming.

 

Simply due to the fact you are using

[latex]E=h v[/latex] I do not understand why you cannot grasp that this formula above states that the energy of the field is multiples of the Planck constant.

 

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

 

notice your using the same formula as the one that defines the energy of the photon. (I don't don't know how you can ignore this) then expect to change people's minds about how we think of the photon. When the math you presented is identical to what we already think of the photon according to QM.

 

 

Either way this is off topic of the thread. Good luck with your video.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

As stated before, deriving the equation for one hf is to show that the classical mechanics derives the same amount of momentum as p = h / λ equation. It's just as easy to derive it in raw joule units, 1J, but nobody would recognize it. All that matters is if CM predicts the correct amount of momentum for a given amount of absorbed energy.

 

As for E=hf, in the video I will present evidence that it's merely the energy of *one* decaying emr burst commonly emitted by an electron in an atom, but that's not a universal law. It can be 1/2 hf, or 2.79764E-79*hf. E=hf represents *one* photon. Use E=n*h*f otherwise.

 

BTW in the video I will derive Planck's constant, h, from 100% Classical Mechanics. You'll see what h truly means.

 

ps, will that be still be considered theoretical?

[Mordred]

Yes because you will need to prove you can measure the energy of the field in any value that isn't a multiple of the Planck constant.

http://www.britannica.com/science/Plancks-constant

 

 

"Plancks constant [Credit: Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz]

(symbol h), fundamental physical constant characteristic of the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics, which describes the behaviour of particles and waves on the atomic scale, including the particle aspect of light"

 

Edit actually it isn't theoretically plausible until you can prove the above. Unless you can prove the above its still a speculation.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Mordred

[ajb]

Well classical mechanics is not theoretical, but what I've done with CM is unknown so far. Therefore some may call it theoretical.

If you have done some calculation within some mathematical framework and you hope that the result matches with nature to some extent, then you have done some theoretical physics.

 

So, classical mechanics is a mathematical framework to describe the motion of macroscopic bodies and particles. It works well provided we are not too near the atomic scale or on smaller scales. I have published some very theoretical and mathematical that sits in the framework of classical mechanics.

 

 

BTW in the video I will derive Planck's constant, h, from 100% Classical Mechanics. You'll see what h truly means.

You should write this up and not place a video on youtube.

 

 

ps, will that be still be considered theoretical?

If you really have done this and it is some calculation then it is theoretical. If you have experimentally shown this, this it is not theoretical, but remember that all experiments rely on theory.

 

I think you are confusing 'theory' and 'theoretical' with 'unfounded and ill posed speculation'. The second is more of what we see in the speculations section than some meaningful speculations and conjectures based on extending accepted physics.

 

P.S. I do not think we should discuss the topics in closed threads in any detail. If you have addressed the issues raised in the thread that was closed then you should seek to reopen it by convincing the moderators that the thread is worth reopening.

Edited September 10, 2015 by ajb

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Reintroduction of closed topic.
Which is still flawed as explained by the other members.