Is Planck's Constant Truly a Variable in Photon Chemistry?

[tfleming]

Prasad recently posted a paper for review on a classical derivation of Planck's constant ( http://www.columbia.edu/~vg96/papers/planck.pdf ). I replied directly via Outlook Express and wondered why I got no replies until I realized that much of your forum traffic probably comes via this portal. So, instead of going over all my previous posts, I will reiterate my reply to Prasad below (with some minor edits):

"Your work is fascinating; it mirrors my work in the area of electromagnetics
and the self-fields of atoms. In this theory, the fields are NOT the
classical fields but are defined in terms of centres-of-motion; using these
fields, Maxwell's equations are solved analytically and lo and behold for
the hydrogen atom, the analytic solutions involve a constant that turns out
to be Planck's 'constant', except it's not a constant but a variable of
motion!

There's an early version of the paper at
www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute,com[/URL] . A more advanced version of the
paper is also there; this paper is currently under review and hopefully will be published in due course. The work also says things about SR and GR that fit into the accepted concepts of these areas.

Further work concerns an extension of the work that also applies to the
humble photon! Hence the photon has balmer-like analytic solutions like the
hydrogen atom. Everything falls out to yield a photon 'chemistry' similar
to atoms, except the solutions are continuous and not discrete since the
masses of the subphotonic particles must be equal , whereas the electron and
the proton are of different mass and hence the series in NOT analogue but
discrete, i.e. quantum! hence QM is really derivable from classical-type
maths, same as your work. The work on the photon 'chemistry' is at
[PLAIN]http://www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com/A%20predicted%20photon%20chemistry-hand%20out.pdf .

Tony"-----(END OF EARLIER EMAIL TO PRASAD)

(There is also a powerpoint file on this predicted photon chemistry and some of its implications such as how quantum physics comes about.)

Since that reply to Prasad (about a week ago) Liz Bauer and I have reorganized our website somewhat so that there is now a brief paper on Planck's constant as it is seen by the EM self-field theory.

I have senty various emails to follow up this work on the following topics:

EM self-field theory (EMSFT)
strong nuclear forces (SNSFT)
pentaquark
nucleons
uncertainty
balck holes/white holes & EMSFT/SNSFT
unification of forces
QCD (vs SNSFT)
cosmic dynamics
beyond quantum
Unified field theory-where do I publish??
relativity
dynamic balance
cellular dynamics
disruption of cancer replication
homeopathy and the predicted photon chemistry

There are many more fields of study that EMSFT and SNSFT can be applied to; some of these areas are spelt out in the pdf's at the website:

quantum and continuous physics
weak forces (bosons etc)
Bose-Einstein condensates
gravitational forces (four of them, at least)
possible multiverse theories
a new form of tired light and the redshift/inflation theories
biological dielectric theory, both endogenous and expogenous
long-term memory
a range of neurological and cellular mechanisms

The list goes on endlessly in fact, and it does seem that this field theory is indeed the one that Einstein and others were searching for. It does NOT contradict many of the precepts of quantum field theory/relativity/etc although it does provide many new paths of study in these areas.

The rotating vectors I have defined as 'spinors' because the term has to date been kidnapped by mathematics whereas these forms are 'physical' spinors and turn up everywhere.

Please look at the pdf's at the site.

Note finally the major differences in the way the E- and H-fields are defined NOT between charge points but between centres of motion.

Tony Fleming

 

[tfleming]

You may wonder why I've used this forum to spell out this theory if it's so good. Well I do feel that if we wait for the papers to emerge this will take a considerable length of time. I am currently writing a unification paper but it will probably have to wait until the range of seminal papers is written; however this will not stop me from publishing via website which will help speed up the dissemination of this work. My primary area of publishing is going to be the applications to biophysics and energy (there's a whole science awaiting to be exploited say in fusion engineering such as spin-offs of the tokamak reactors)

Tony Fleming

 

[mathman]

I can't comment on your work. However, if you are in a hurry and have any credibility, you can get it distributed on arXiv. It is unreferreed, but you may need a referral from someone (not me) to use it.

 

[tfleming]

Who can act as a referral for arXiv?

 

[mathman]

Bring up the web site. The instructions are posted there.

http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/

 

[tfleming]

thanks for that! this will be a good way to speed the process along; as you can imagine, the process of spreading the word against the tide of current opinion can be difficult, but certainly not impossible, we are starting to see various groups accepting the work as it is a novel and valid method of treating the mathematics of fields; so i'll keep this thread going to go through the basic analytics and how Maxwell's equations are solved ANALYTICALLY.

It would be good IF i could use the maths symbols as I believe you guys have set up; can I use mathtype or equations 3.0 i.e via Word?? IF so, I can just pick and put from a couple of files and we're away.

The most interesting thing about the maths is that since it is NOT based on EM potentials but rather the E- and H-fields for the self-fields it is a completely novel path that has not been realized before.

 

[tfleming]

i'll walk you through it verbally for a start; assume that the fields are NOT point-charge to point-charge. This is a classical concept that was born out of the experiments of Coulomb, Faraday and others around 175 odd years ago. The form of the inverse square followed Newton's gravitational law, and the experiments in electricity and magnetism are MACROSCOPIC; but we are interested in atoms say (to begin with). Looking at OTHER ways that people have dealt with such issues, and if you've done a masters thesis in axisymmetric antenna structures, you tend to learn a lot of good real world maths including some of the older techniques, Von Hippel, "dielectrics and waves" Wiley, 3rd printing, 1962, uses a rotating vector. He solves the problem of far-field radiation from a dipole antenna. In my phd (bioelectromagnetics), I studied this in regards a similar problem where it was desired to obtain ZERO RADIATION in the far-field. The way to do this is by adjusting components so that the RADIATION IN is equal to the RADIATION OUT (remember we are treating the field as ubiquitous and infinite, which turns out to be incorrect, but for this case there's heaps of energy residing IN the field, stored in the infinite field).

So we CAN in fact have zero radiation antennas; this leads to a realisation of exactly what is an 'imaginary' field and what it means physically. the antenna structure needs to be a cross dipole where there is a phase difference of pi/2 (or "j" between the ttwo dipoles. This is NOT an electric dipole but a ring dipole, a magnetic dipole. and so we have two toriods which have to 'access' each other, so most conveniently we have a solid sphere of metal in which two oscillating fields are established (no mean feat, but nice theoretically)-so much for lecture 1! see you tomorrow

 

[tfleming]

As you can see I've separated out the zero radiation from this thread which needs to stay focused on the photons and how they are organized. First note that (from the other LOCKED thread where there is an abstract that was recently presented in Kos Greece) from the Maxwell's e quations we substitute the rotasting vectors (which I will from hereon term spinors (not the unit spinors known from potential theory or quantum field theory but a more 'physical' spinor; we can think of a numerical modelling entity here if you like, so wherever we even SUSPECT that things might be rotating, we can, being good engineers and mathematicans, use the exponential forms such as exp(jwt) and exp(-jwt) as a basis to attempt to solve our system of equations.

Lo and behold, when we use these forms for the E-field and the H-field in Maxwell's equations we get a system of equations which looks very intriguing, very intriguing indeed! so do that for tomorrow and i'll continue then