Is near field quantized?

[Theoretical]

Transformers use the electromagnetic near field. I haven't tested this, but would like to know if you think QM or QED shows the electromagnetic near field to be quantized. In other words, can a transformer transfer less than one tenth of h*f amount of energy in every exponentially decaying pulse for a given frequency?

[Sensei]

Transformers use the electromagnetic near field. I haven't tested this, but would like to know if you think QM or QED shows the electromagnetic near field to be quantized. In other words, can a transformer transfer less than one tenth of h*f amount of energy in every exponentially decaying pulse for a given frequency?

 

I completely dont understand where you get idea that quantization of field automatically leads to transferring 10% of energy through wires... ?

 

E=h*f is equation for energy of photon.

In transformer you have no photons as such.

There are accelerated electrons, moving back and forth in wires. Transformer requires AC.

 

Equation for power is:

P₀=U₀*I₀

or energy:

E₀=U₀*Q₀

on primary winding.

(divide it by frequency of AC, and you will have amount of energy per single sinus wave)

 

And

P₁=U₁*I₁

or

E₁=U₁*Q₁

on secondary winding.

 

Perfect transformer would have no loss of energy/power, thus equations:

U₀*I₀=U₁*I₁

U₀*Q₀=U₁*Q₁

would be true.

Divide Q/e to have quantity of electrons.

In other words small quantity of electrons, with large voltage, is turned to large quantity of electrons with small voltage.

Or reverse. It depends on quantity of winding on core. Make your own transformer, and you will see dependence between voltage, current and frequency of AC, in primary and secondary winding.

 

But during work, transformer is heating (wires have resistance R>0, usually Copper wire, as it has very small resistance), and thus losing part of energy/power. (not the only way to loss efficiency)

 

More about transformer efficiency and losses

http://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/04/transformer-losses-and-efficiency.html

[Theoretical]

I completely dont understand where you get idea that quantization of field automatically leads to transferring 10% of energy through wires... ?

 

E=h*f is equation for energy of photon.

In transformer you have no photons as such.

There are accelerated electrons, moving back and forth in wires. Transformer requires AC.

 

Equation for power is:

P₀=U₀*I₀

or energy:

E₀=U₀*Q₀

on primary winding.

(divide it by frequency of AC, and you will have amount of energy per single sinus wave)

 

And

P₁=U₁*I₁

or

E₁=U₁*Q₁

on secondary winding.

 

Perfect transformer would have no loss of energy/power, thus equations:

U₀*I₀=U₁*I₁

U₀*Q₀=U₁*Q₁

would be true.

Divide Q/e to have quantity of electrons.

In other words small quantity of electrons, with large voltage, is turned to large quantity of electrons with small voltage.

Or reverse. It depends on quantity of winding on core. Make your own transformer, and you will see dependence between voltage, current and frequency of AC, in primary and secondary winding.

 

But during work, transformer is heating (wires have resistance R>0, usually Copper wire, as it has very small resistance), and thus losing part of energy/power. (not the only way to loss efficiency)

 

More about transformer efficiency and losses

http://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/04/transformer-losses-and-efficiency.html

Wow. I never said such a thing. In fact, I clearly stated a question.

Please read my top post again if you wish to answer because I don't know how to better word it.

Interesting book. Quantum Theory of Near-Field Electrodynamics By Ole Keller

[Enthalpy]

I feel the question is rather clear - only the answer isn't to me...

 

I can bring practical considerations quickly: this looks difficult to measure with standard hardware.

Transformers with core serve up to 100MHz (and rather less), efficient transformers to 40GHz+ with microstrip lines, but photon noise begins to exceed thermal noise of cooled amplifiers rather above 40GHz.

 

Well, the experiment doesn't need efficient transformer coupling, so it must be feasible by stretching the components a bit.

 

My not quite justified bet is: signal itself is quantized, that's why "photon noise" exists, and the experiment will see this photon noise whether it comes from a transformer, a resistor, an antenna or anything.

 

I don't even know how to relate it firmly with the near field, because a transformer lets many electrons interact.

[Theoretical]

Thanks for reply. It turns out the near field is not quantized. It's a transverse field.

[Enthalpy]

Will you write a paper for that too? On arXiv please, I have no money for 20 journals.

 

I think at near field too. In atoms, it's said to contribute to the electron's rest mass (after dressing corrects it) but I see no mass correction associated with the electrostatic interaction between the nucleus and an electron.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85377-relativistic-corrections-to-hydrogen-like-atoms/

 

I'll also put somewhere considerations about the propagation delay (or non-delay) of interactions.

[Theoretical]

Out of respect for admins: what I write is not mainstream.

 

Thanks dear Enthalpy. Sure the paper would be free if I wrote it. Back then I narrowed gravity down to a few theories. A short simple non-mainstream statement, if that's okay admins, and no more: There's a lot of atomic world minor effects that mainstream still needs to add, but the most important missing part of mainstream's puzzle has to do with the very nature of space and the electromotive force in conjunction with particle spin and the expanding 4th dimensional bubble universe caused by the big bang, as it explains the first type of gravity and so much more. Hint: Space is moving through you right now, and it's doing something else that's the key to understanding gravity. Unfortunately such science brings about technology that makes the nuclear bomb seem like a firecracker, but yet it bring about compact, mobile, unlimited energy to say the least.

 

Tempting to start a thread in Speculations, but I can't, and shouldn't. This science is dangerous. Humanity in totality needs to be more responsible. Education and critical thinking skills are key. To many dangerous people.

 

p.s. You should checkout the latest public domain advancements in Artificial Intelligence, such as Deepmind, and believe you me that's nothing compared to what's out there. They're watching.

 

Admins, please by all means delete this post if it's too much. I understand.

 

_11.2km/s

Edited April 7, 2016 by Theoretical

[Enthalpy]

Well, if your paper contains computed values for the thermal noise compared with the signal, the probability of distinguishing whether you observed a sub-quantum effect or not, and such things, I'll already be happy.

[Theoretical]

I've only provided the math in the other thread on my photon experiment, but the near field experiment is considerbly easier since transformer noise is lower than antenna noise. Both experiments use the same technique.

[Enthalpy]

Yes, I've found some math on 14 January 2016 - 08:32 AM there.

 

I find the subject very interesting, so I'd like to make my opinion about the experiment. While I understand that you sample many pulses and that the SNR varying as the sqrt is an excellent sign, I'll be happy when you publish the electric diagram, details about the attenuator and antenna and their measured or estimated losses hence own noise. Also, whether it's important or not to the experiment that a single photon is brought to the near-field coupler, or if two photons from time to time are acceptable, and how this influences the experimental result.

 

My feeling is that the quest about near field being quantized or not is absolutely legitimate, that many details (beginning with the noise) are susceptible to hamper an experiment so, as a scientist, I want to check them by myself at least on the paper, and that the experiment would be interesting to reproduce with more favourable parameters, maybe (if necessary) a higher frequency and a lower temperature.

[Theoretical]

Yes, it is all very interesting. Especially when you start to get into gravitation & space medium experiments. When you see things happening that you see in Sci-Fi movies, then it starts to sink in. But then you want the scream because you can't share it with the world lol.

 

Anyhow just remember the two types of techniques mentioned in the other thread. One technique is more advanced than the other. Also remember that the high-speed IR transmitter and receiver are vitally important in order to keep them in sync so the software can take endless samples. Otherwise the circuit would need to obtain incredible stability to achieve such narrow bandwidth, and not to mention remain in sync. The well-known technique I use solves that limitation.

 

I would offer one to consider the concept of a membrane. Twice the frequency, half the wavelength, the membrane is half the thickness. QM is correct that half the wavelength requires twice the energy for what we call longitudinal waves.

 

On the other hand, transverse field's found in near field and dominated at radio frequencies don't have such membranes transversely, and are not quantized.

"dominated at [far field] radio frequencies"

That's merely my theory. The photon membrane theory. Sorry admins I forgot this is mainstream forum. I won't mention such theories again.

 

One final comment. Remember we are using Spectrum software. So the voltage resolution is incredible. Even my cheap oscilloscope at 1X probe mode has a Spectrum resolution for any given frequency of 1.6 *nano* volts or 16nV in 10X mode. By the way my digital scope can go up to 256 samples averaging. so divide those figures by 256. But I write custom software for my scope, which allows unlimited sampling. Yes I tested everything out severely for many years. It works. Verified with calibrated equipment.

[Enthalpy]

From what you wrote previously, I had supposed that you know to use your lab equipment. It's more the figures about thermal noise, quantum energy, and probability of two simultaneous quanta that are in apparence against you, hence I'm keen on reading your description and figures.

 

It's the case of many experiments, for instance Ligo. Under conceivably unreasonable assumptions they'd have no chance to be that sensitive - but the experimenters have found tricks.

[Theoretical]

There's nothing like doing an experiment yourself. Especially when the results go against mainstream. But then again, mainstream has NEVER done this experiment at radio frequencies using *linear* equipment.

 

Actually I've provided numerous experiments in numerous threads suggesting mainstream do certain experiments so they can see the truth, but they refused saying nobody has the time LOL.

 

So, as stated I've already provided the math. It's very simple. It's a matter of how many samples you need to overcome the noise. Remember that when you quadruple the samples the noise only doubles, but the coherent signal quadruples.

 

Anyhow,I should probably not spend any more time here. Too much to do. If you do the experiments, think twice before giving this insane dangerous world the next physics beyond QM. Let them think they're right.