Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A predicted photon chemistry

  1. Nov 14, 2004 #1
    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 realised 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 . 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
    http://www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com/A predicted photon chemistry-hand out.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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 14, 2004 #2
    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
     
  4. Nov 14, 2004 #3

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  5. Nov 14, 2004 #4
    Who can act as a referral for arXiv?
     
  6. Nov 15, 2004 #5

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/
     
  7. Nov 15, 2004 #6
    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 beleive 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 realised before.
     
  8. Nov 15, 2004 #7
    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 gravitional 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
     
  9. Nov 17, 2004 #8
    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 whereever 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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A predicted photon chemistry
  1. What is photon emission (Replies: 24)

  2. Photon ? (Replies: 2)

Loading...