Since electricity and magnetism are unified, then the force between two current carrying conductors, Catapult force and the Lorentz force, can be expressed magnetically by Eq.1=3, Eq.4=5) and Eq.7=8), at: http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/MIH.pdf
http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/MIH.htm
What do you think about these new formulas, and its implications?
It clearly explains
-The magnetic force between two conductors carrying current, Catapult force, and the Lorentz force.
-Why and how charged particles interacted with magnetic field (Lorentz force).
-Why electrons and protons gyrate oppositely round magnetic line of force.
The new Lorentz force formulas resolved the followings?
- It explains the nuclear force.
- It presents new atomic model, resolving dilemma faced by classical physics in early twenty century.
Mahmoud, I had only very little time to give your paper a superficial look. It looks like a classical theory, essentially. Some of the reasoning in the introduction seems like referring to relatively old literature where this seems inappropriate to me.
Anyway, I have a few initial questions:
(i) does your model produce a hydrogen ground state with zero orbital angular momentum? (if so, why and how)
(ii) what causes two magnetic fields to interact (instead of simply superimposing) in your theory?
(iii) I can't understand why you say that in current theory no mechanism of interaction with the magnetic field is present. The presence of a magnetic field (and hence the related vector potential) causes additional phase terms (of the kind \vec(A)\times\vec(ds)) in the wave function. Thes contribute to the energy of the state and hence represent a clear instance of well-defined magnetic interaction. You can derive this from writing down a Lagrangian producing the Lorentz force in the first place and then procede as usual with canonical transformation to obtain the classical Hamiltonian first, and then the QM one. (This is what I am currently teaching. Anything wrong with that?)
Kai, many thanks for your valuable comment and advices and I will study them. But as you can see the idea behind the Magnetic Interaction (written in 2000) is to show the existence of an equivalent force to the known one (force between two current conductors, Catapult force, and the Lorentz force), and that had been shown and emphasized in several places, the state of attraction and repulsion is what been named as magnetic interaction, and as the previous equations (Eqs. 1, 4, 7) were expressed either in electric quantity or electric/magnetic quantities, hence the nature of repulsion and attraction was missing. The Lorentz Equation 7 is equivalent to Equation 8, but Eq.8 allowed for many interpretations; hence it opened the gate for better understanding to many phenomena. For example all of us know magnetic field play great role in inter-atomic bond, but how? Eqs.15 and 16, show that, at specific magnetic radius (rme) and electrostatic radius (ree), both magnetic force (Fm) and electrostatic force (Fe) are balanced with the centripetal force (FC), hence stabilizing the hydrogen atom (Fig.6. http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/MIH_files/image046.jpg), and the parameters of this stabilization, is given in table Table.2 for hydrogen atom (including the Magnetic Moment), with specific velocity and distance.
Imagine if Equation 8 was known in the end of eighteen/or early nineteen century, what future could theoretical physics have? The paper is an extension to the classical theory.
The problem that lead to Bohr atom, was the question of the spectrum line, but this been resolve in this model (Table.4) by energization process, and that whenever an orbital electron (or an atom) is subjected to an excitation potential, this lead to sequences of several mechanism given in Table.3, which finally lead to energization process, and the reproduction of spectral lines as given in Table.4, and shown in Fig.8, for hydrogen atom, each process is explained with relevant mathematical formula. I hope you may have some time to read the paper, and many thanks.
Dear Mahmoud, it may indeed take some time to complete reading it. In the mean time - through my questions - I try to assess how urgent this is to me - and whether I regard it as "worth the effort" (I don't mean to be impolite here).
You write:
"For example all of us know magnetic field play great role in inter-atomic bond, but how?"
Well, this is something I didn't know and I don't actually believe this is true. I do not know any valid classical theory of interatomic bonding. If somehow you think of QM exchange as "magnetic" (because it relates to spin) then remind that exchange energies are actually electrostatic Coulomb energies.
Finally a last point, again classical in nature: do you describe in your paper, how the classical motion of the electron(s) in atoms avoid radiating despite there being accelerated charges?
I'll be glad to hear/read from you.
Dear Kai, many thanks for this little time you gave me, I really appreciate that and I hope you may later get more time to enrich our discussions even in another forum.
Please check (F. E. Trinklein, Modern Physics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, N.Y, 1990) at the end of page 466, it is stated that “an electron revolving about the nucleus of an atom imparts a magnetic property to the atom structure. When the atoms of substance are subjected to the magnetic force of a strong magnet, the force affects this magnetic property, opposing the motion of the electrons.”
Also: Hydrogen bond strength can be affected by electromagnetic and magnetic effects.
(http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hbond.html)
And in “Magnetic-Field Manipulation of Chemical Bonding in Artificial Molecules”
Page 700: “we show that a perpendicular magnetic field reduces the coupling between the individual dots and, for sufficiently high values, it leads to the dissociation of the artificial molecule.” At http://www.physics.gatech.edu/files/u26/papers/0255.pdf
From these, an electron imparts magnetic property to the atom, and that can change the motion, hence this imply magnetism play big role in the bond but, and if the following is possible, what does it means?
New chemical bonds possible in extreme magnetic fields: LONDON creates mathematical models of molecular orbitals under the influence of magnetic fields of about 105 T. (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/20/new-chemical-bonds-possible-in-extreme-magnetic-fields)
In our model, an orbital electron continually undergo energization process which is dissipated in the orbital motion, while within this hypothesis electromagnetic radiation occurred only when electron perform specific action during the motion, forcing both the electric and magnetic fields to interwoven and produced electromagnetic wave (unpublished paper).
The references to "hydrogen bonding" are about hydrogen bridge bonding in water. Water, though so omnipresent, belongs to the REALLY COMLEX, not fully understood materials! Hydrogen bridge bonding, in any case, belongs to the weak forms of bonding, orders of magnitude away from covalent, ionic or metallic bonding!
You write:
Please check (F. E. Trinklein, Modern Physics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, N.Y, 1990) at the end of page 466, it is stated that “an electron revolving about the nucleus of an atom imparts a magnetic property to the atom structure. When the atoms of substance are subjected to the magnetic force of a strong magnet, the force affects this magnetic property, opposing the motion of the electrons.”
I have indeed ordered the book via inter library loan (our libraries don't have a copy).
The question is, though, the order of magnitude of the effect. Take Bohr's hydrogen atom. the magnetic moment in the n=1 ground state is the Bohr magneton. A magnetic moment of this magnitude experiences an energy change of 58µeV in a field of 1 T. So, in 10^3T (exceeds human capacity to produce static magn. fields by far) that is good for 58meV. Compare this to the energy difference to the n=2 level, which is about 10 eV. Still almost a factor 200 off.
What Trinklein most probably refers to, is Larmor diamagnetism. Well, that is much smaller even. It arises due to the phase changes I mentioned earlier.
But most importantly, the Trinklein argument rests on a revolving electron. A revolving electron does possess nonzero angular momentum, hence nonzero (orbital) magnetic moment. The hydrogen ground state has zero angular momentum and thus zero orbital magnetic moment.
The Landman paper is on "artificial molecules", i.e. coupled semiconductor quantum dots. Indeed, here we have the situation that the relevant energies are small due to the nature of the objects under study. Therefore, the relative importance of magnetic energies is much larger. This is an extremely nice physics playground, well suited to learn basic many body physics aspects - but tells you little about the importance of magnetic energies in 'normal' interatomic bonding.
In the LONDON paper the talk is not about 105T but 10^5=100000T. Go back to the numerics above for the Bohr magneton: states with nonzero z-component of angular momentum now acquire an energy splitting of the order of several eV. Something will happen. But mind that electrons also have spin, resulting in energy splittings of the same order. Spin is a non-classical quantity, however.
So, I don't see where the importance of magnetic terms comes in under 'normal' circumstances. I agree that matter may look and behave differently if exposed to static (or dynamic) magnetic fields of 100000T and more.
The rest of my comments were for more information about how that influence could be liked with phenomena on large scale, but I would like to emphasize on the point, from the above source (Trinklein, 1990) that:
“An electron (any) revolving about the nucleus of an atom (any) imparts a magnetic property to the atom (any) structure. When the atoms of substance (any) are subjected to the magnetic force of a strong magnet, the force affects this magnetic property, opposing the motion of the electrons.”
In the above statement, it means any electrons in any atom inside any substance, its motion will be opposed.
Such changes in atoms characteristics was previously suggested by Kapitza, (Kapitza, P., Collected Papers of P. Kapitza (The Production of and Experiments in Strong Magnetic Field), Edited by D. Ter Hear, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967.)
Mahmoud, so I've also ordered Vol.3 of Kapitza's collected work and shall see what I find there.
Anyhow, staying with the Trinklein statement, it says nothing about the relative magnitude of the change induced, compared to the magnitude of the quantities characterizing the motion in absence of the magnetic field.
What I said is, that with 'normal' fields, the changes are small.
What I read in your writings are hints at presumably large effects.
The examples above refer to situations with weak bonding in highly complex matter (water), systems with small intrinsic energy scale (artificial molecules) and extraordinarily high fields (LONDON).
I suppose that I would have to read more in depth your material to appreciate all of this better.
Kai, Trinklein statement said something very important, that is “affects magnetic property + opposing electrons motion.”
But what happened when an atom is excited (according to MIH)?
If an atom is subjected to higher electromagnetic radiation, volts or magnetic field, these lead to an equivalent following change:
Electromagnetic radiation → changes in velocity.
Volts → change in electrostatic force.
Magnetic field → change in magnetic forces.
As the balance of orbital force changes, thus each of the above changes move electron from the natural orbit, proportional to effects magnitude, therefore either ionizing electron or moving it slightly from the natural orbit (but still under electrostatic influence), where it will be energized quanta of energy related to the radial distance from the nucleus, after radiating the specific spectral line, electron will be pull towards the nucleus by the electrostatic force, this accelerate electron that produced circular magnetic field, interacting with proton's spinning magnetic field, hence a magnetic force will be produced to balance with the electrostatic, and both balanced with the centripetal force (Fc=Fe+Fm), hence creating the balance of forces at the natural orbit, and atom stability.
http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/MIH_files/image046.jpg
http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/MIH_files/image046.jpg
Kai, thanks for the correction; I hope you got the mentioned books?
Mahmoud, I got the Kapitza collected papers (Vol. 3) today and read the 3 pages you referred to above. I did not find any extraordinary statement. It's fun reading about the efforts made around 1930 about reaching high magnetic fields and doing experiments on comparably short time scales. Also, mind that this is not a scientific paper but the transcript of a talk given at a discussion club.
I'd say today's understanding of internal fields and couplings in atoms is more precise and complete than it was at the time but that is only natural, isn't it.
So he mentions effective magnetic fields to be of the order of 1000T in atoms and discusses technical issues about the generation of, say 10000T. External fields of this order (still well below the 10^5 T which were mentioned above) will effectively compete with outer shell spin orbit coupling in many elements and therefore the corresponding atomic spectra shall certainly be changed.
The energies involved at 1000T are of the order of 100meV / atom, that is nevertheless a small energy scale in many elements in atomic form.
If this is what you allude to above, when you write "Such changes in atoms characteristics was previously suggested by Kapitza" then I'd not say we need a modified theory whatsoever.
Classically you would still have to fight the problem of the stability of a system containing a revolving electron (against emission of radiation). Moreover, the general statement that classically there cannot be any equilibrium magnetism is untouched (Bohr - van Leeuwen - theorem).
Postulating a stable orbit of a revolving electron you will have to deal with the Lorentz force properly. This comes down to computing Larmor precession. It is a high precession frequency at elevated fields, which corresponds to an added angular momentum and modified kinetic energy. One interesting question is where the work required for this was done. the answer si that is was done while switching the magnetic field on (you have a finite time derivative of B, this creates an electric roration field which modifies the azimutal movement of the electron around the magnetic field direction).
In all this I cannot see the need for a modified description of interacting magnetic fields.
Kai, please go back to above discussion and you can find I just quote Kapitza suggestion by stating: “Such changes in atoms characteristics was previously suggested by Kapitza.”
And this suggestion is related to what is stated in the (Trinklein, 1990) book which I mentioned above also as he stated that:
“An electron revolving about the nucleus of an atom imparts a magnetic property to the atom structure. When the atoms of substance are subjected to the magnetic force of a strong magnet, the force affects this magnetic property, opposing the motion of the electrons.”
Therefore you are to check at the end of page 466, of Trinklein [1990] book, because Kapitza was envision a situation which later been stated by Trinklein.
Kapitza was a great scientists as we can see later.
Dear Mahmoud, I was not trying to offend you.
I have now received a book with title "modern physics", coauthored by F. E. Trinklein (the other authors are J. E. Williams, H. C. Metcalfe and R. W. Lefler). Unfortunately this most probably is noth the book or edition you used (I received the 1968 edition, the first edition dating back to 1955).
This is a very basic, introductory book at the undergraduate level on what was considered the essence of modern physics almost 50-60 years ago. I have not found the literal statements on the page(s) you have indicated - this is why I think that you are using either a more recent edition or an entirely different or rewritten book.
I would not use this book for taking any authoritative statement on the state of physics at the time. It does not address connaisseurs of the science but rather contains a first introduction to various topics all across physics.
Quite naturally then, it contains little real quantum mechanics. It does mention the difficulties of the Rutherford and Bohr models with respect to the fact that the planetary motion model of the atom cannot be stable according to the classical laws of physics. Assuming the atom to be stable nevertheless (as Bohr did) is an implicit introduction of an element of quantum mechanics. We have learnt meanwhile that accepting the quantum reality also forces us to rethink our (classical) conception of what matter is at the atomic scale (and beyond).
Beyond what I just wrote, I hooked up with the following sentence of yours (in the magnetic interaction paper):
"It is known that the forces keeping electrons around nucleus, are both the electrostatic and the electromagnetism [12], but no mechanism had been suggested for it."
If you accept electrostatic forces to exist, why do you not consider them as mechanism? You could just say the electrostatic forces ARE the major mechanism keeping electrons and nucleus together. To what magnetic terms come into play is maybe another issue.
How does your theory cope with the issue of the instability of the classical atom with respect to emission of electromagnetic radiation?
Dear Kai, as I mentioned the reference is “Modern Physics” written by Trinklein (1990), and first printed in 1968, with two editions afterwards (1990/92 http://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/5434472-modern-physics). Since “Reference is a relation between objects in which one object designates, or acts as a means by which to connect to or link to, another object” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference) and as I was tackling the fundamental physics, and most of current books are based on Quantum Mechanics, therefore Trinklein (190) was the best among others which I relied on, in my investigation to know what went wrong in classical physics and how, particularly it was written by authoritative Prof. Frederck E.Trinklein (see the post bellow).
Niels Bohr presented Quantum as a solution to the electrons acceleration problem, and as I mentioned above, the inter-atomic stability is attained by the balance of both the electrostatic and magnetic force with the centripetal force (2Fc=Fe+Fm) at specific orbit and radial distance, at that natural orbit and after stabilized, electron is continually undergo an energization process, to keep electron at that orbit. Whenever such an electron is excited, it moved from natural orbit to some radial distance from nucleus and within electrostatic influence, then it makes rotational arc within the new orbit and will be energized within this new temporary orbit, the amount of the new energy is related to the radial distance from the natural orbit, which related to the excitation potential, the higher the excited potential the greater the acquired energy, hence this quanta energy will be radiated as established by Planck (attached figure), after losing the energy, the electrostatic force will attract electron towards the nucleus, this established velocity will produced the circular magnetic field (CMF) which will interact with the proton’s spinning magnetic field (SMF) and stabilizing the electron at the natural orbit, the stability is given by 2Fc=Fe+Fm.
I can’t deny the electrostatic force which was known before the Quantum era, but alone it failed to bring the required stability within the atom.
For me, the passion of knowledge and searching for the truth was increased by the quest for an alternative renewable energy, which was attained in form of the External Magnetic Field Propulsion System (ExMF-PS) at: http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/New_Energy/Propulsion/ExMF-PS.pdf
Therefore the “Magnetic Interaction” (http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/EMLF.pdf) was established as base to build upon for the above new alternative energy.
http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/MIH_files/image082.jpg
(Related to our discussion, a valuable Letter by Prof. Trinklein to Editor Of New Your Times in 2001)
To the Editor:
Re your April 8 front-page article about intelligent design theory: In my science teaching and writing (which includes "Modern Physics," a high school physics text), I learned that theories and laws are invariably modified or even replaced as new data appear. The theory of Darwinian evolution will not be an exception.
History shows that the attempt to mandate a particular outlook is a useless enterprise. Worse, it can hinder the advance of science. Major breakthroughs were often delayed by such blatantly wrong yet long- held models like the Ptolemaic system and the phlogiston theory.
Attempts to perpetuate a theory in light of new discoveries often reveal more about the biases of the adherents than they do about the true nature of the universe.
FREDERICK E. TRINKLEIN
Shoreham, N.Y., April 10, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/11/opinion/L11EVOL.html
This is certainly a true statement which should, however, be used with caution - so that is does not seem to serve as an excuse or an insult as soon as my favorite theoretical viewpoint is being challenged.
In order for a major change in theoretical understanding, there should be good reasons to undertake that change. Trinklein mentions "new data" as such a reason. This is fair, especially if there is good reason to believe that the new data are reliable and significant.
With respect to your treatment of the atom (and more) what is the data which necessitate such a change and what is the quality gain by switching to your theory? I have not yet understood this point.
You quote Trinklein as being authoritative. What is the reason for this assignment? His book, in any case is quoted to be "an introductory text for high school students", so that is physics at the school level. Do you expect the treatment there and the statements given in such a book to be adequate for discussion forefront of science topics? I wouldn't. My son is 16 yrs old, he is quite smart and he does have physics at schools and does get good grades. No way I could discuss with himm whether classical physics is able at all to allow a magnetic state at thermal equilibrium. that would be asking way too much! (most of our university students would probably fail at this)
There are a few lines of thought in your articles which I have difficulties understanding and/or following. I'll come back later to this and I announce this will not be very quick, since I do also have quite a few other duties.
Let me come back to one point I made earlier. Would you do me the favor to study the Bohr-vanLeeuwen theorem, which is entirely about classical physics. Would you then check whether your theory is in accordance with these statements or not? If not (which I suspect is the case) would you then be willing to try disproving this theorem?
Kai, I don’t want to repeat what I said above about what reference means, while my statement that Trinklein is “authoritative”, of course for such scientist to write three books in physics (Modern Physics, Modern Physics Lab Experiments and Modern space science) in addition to years of teaching, what requirements more than that? The new data which is relevant to my case are: Eqs.{8, 9, 10, 12, and 15} at: http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/New_Energy/Propulsion/ExMF-PS.pdf
To come up with a different atomic theory, it required first good knowledge and understanding of previous theories, among which is quantum mechanics, and for your 16 years to understand the fundamental physics as written by Trinklein, that is great I hope he will be able to come up with something different.
It was my hope that we are to concentrate on the theoretical aspects of the paper which I explained above.
Unfortunately, long experience and research/teaching record is not a sufficient indicator for high quality books. I do know books I dislike although I appreciate the author's or authors' work.
And I do reiterate that Trinklein's book is intended for high school teaching. So it does not cover the subject of subatomic mechanics within classical theory at a sufficiently adequate level - I would tend to say. As not really new, but on level I'd consider the book series by L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz. Also very useful in thie context is J.J. Jackson's treatment of electrodynamics.
When you write "It was my hope that we are to concentrate on the theoretical aspects of the paper which I explained above", then I can fully understand and accept this.
And my request to you "Would you do me the favor to study the Bohr-vanLeeuwen theorem, which is entirely about classical physics. Would you then check whether your theory is in accordance with these statements or not? If not (which I suspect is the case) would you then be willing to try disproving this theorem?" in my perception hits that point exactly. I believe I have understood the essence of the proof on the Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem and I do tend to find it logically acceptable (and I recently taught it in a magnetism lecture). It is entirely concerned with classical physics. And as far as I can see there is great risk that application of your theory would lead to violation of that theorem. Then there's either a problem with the theorem or with your theory. So this looks like something interesting to find out, doesn't it?
And there is yet another line of thought of mine: given you had a valid description of subatomic physics based on a classical formulation of mechanics of massive point charges. How do you envision to describe the phenomenon of electron diffraction starting from there? [quantum mechanics does both...]
I only received the last three notifications today, so I don’t know you posted a replay eight days ago.
You raised a valid point, that is: “How do you envision describing the phenomenon of electron diffraction starting from there?”
Just give me some times (hopefully two to three months) and I would be able to replay this point.
Dear Kai
I am really sorry, because the three months just elapsed and still I need more time to replay to you, please just give me another four months, and thanks in advance for the understanding.
To Kai, Mohammad, and those following this discussion:
I am really sorry once again, but I decided in July last year to participate in American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall Meeting (December 2013), with poster titled “What was the source of Magnetic Field Measured by Pioneer V in 1960?” ID: 1790206” (http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/Propulsion/Yousif-GC51D-1005.pdf), I became busy in that poster and two other papers, then I continued with other two papers in energy related issues, the reason why I postponed works on my replay to the two slits experiment (I think energy is a field deserve such attention), but now I am back on track, investigating the two slits experiment.
@Kai. After a lengthy search in the two slits experiment, I decided to go to what I believe was the root cause of conflict within physics that lead to the duality, that was Einstein’ explanation of the photoelectric effect; I believed he was forced to introduced quanta to knock out electrons due to the little knowledge regarding characteristics of electromagnetic radiation, resulted from the lack of theory to explain light mechanism, so I have been working within that and related characteristics and managed to prepared four papers, which could form my answer to what represents a challenge to my atomic hypothesis, the four papers are:
The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism.
Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant.
The Photoelectric Effects-Radiation Based.
Interoperation of Double Slits Experiments.
The first of these was just published at the International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences (IJFPS) Vol 4, No 3, Sept , 2014, accessable at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/archive/2014No3.html
Article The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism
@ Kai. This is the second paper in the series titled “Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant.”
The paper gives among others:
- The condition under which Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R) can be produced.
- The really formula for the speed of light (not based on permittivity and permeability of free space given by Maxwell).
- The EM-R energy.
- What is Planck’ constant?
http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf
@ Kai. This is the third paper in replay to your question, titled “The Photoelectric Effects-Radiation Based With Atomic Model”
In this paper, an equation for Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) is formulated, given by Eq (24) it confirmed the existence of an embedded force in light, similar to Planck’ Radiation Magnetic Energy (EmR) formula (hf), it also managed to explain higher Atom structure (strengthening our hydrogen atom model), with a given example of Potassium atom (19 electrons) detailing its parameters and spectral lines; above all the paper disclosed what and how Planck’ constant (h) came into existence, and from where Planck’ energy formula (EmR) emerged.
http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf
http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf
@ Kai. This is the fourth paper in replay to your question, titled “The Compton Effect Re-Visited”
I finished the paper since September last year, but no publisher willing to publish it, for me the important thing is what idea it contained.
As you can realized, answering the phenomenon is a complicated issue, particularly the distance (d), which is what makes it more difficult, but as Raman stated “the classical wave-principles are not easily reconcilable with Compton effect because they have not been correctly interpreted.”
With this paper I will be ready to answer your main question about the double slit experiment.
At:
http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf
Kai Fauth. On May 15, 2013, you challenged "The Magnetic Interaction," stating that:
"And there is yet another line of thought of mine: given you had a valid description of subatomic physics based on a classical formulation of mechanics of massive point charges. How do you envision to describe the phenomenon of electron diffraction starting from there? [quantum mechanics does both...]"
I accepted the challenge, asking for three months, but I discovered the issue is more complicated than I thought, and as Raman put it “the classical wave-principles are not easily reconcilable with Compton effect because they have not been correctly interpreted."
The misinterpretation goes back to Maxwell, so I wrote the following papers:
-"The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism" at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/68_IJFPS_Sept_2014_72_79.pdf
- "The Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck' Constant " at: http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf
- "The Photoelectric Effect Radiation Based: With Atomic Model"At: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf
- "The Compton Effect Re-Visited", at: http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdfhttp://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAA
Based on these four papers, I finally succeed in answering your question two parts, this this first part of:
"The Double Slit Experiment-Explained"http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-double-slit-experimentexplained-2090-0902-1000179.php?aid=76055
Please, you can imagine how tough the task was, so I just requested you kindly to replay to this answer.
http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-double-slit-experimentexplained-2090-0902-1000179.php?aid=76055
Dear Mahmoud E. Yousif,
I appreciate your endeavor and the work which has gone into this. Yet, I will have to find the time for properly reading into your work. Unfortunately, I cannot place this way up on my current priority list. This is also why I have so far refrained from replying in any form.
Best wishes, KF
Dear Kai Fauth
Thanks for your kind response; I know your final goal as mine is to know the truth.
I would like to bring to your attention that, the Journal of Physical Mathematics which published the “ The Double Slit Experiment-Explained” failed to publish the agreed reviewed article, so I was forced to re-publish the reviewed article under “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained,” which differ greatly from the first one, and I will be glad if you get the time to go through, at:
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf
With best regards
Mahmoud E. Yousif
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf
Dear Dr. Kai Fauth.
Back on May 15, 2013, you made the following statement:
“And there is yet another line of thought of mine: given you had a valid description of subatomic physics based on a classical formulation of mechanics of massive point charges. How do you envision to describe the phenomenon of electron diffraction starting from there? [quantum mechanics does both...]”
Kai, as you were aware, the question was tough enough, because it was the bases from which the famous debates and challenges Einstein went through in early twentieth century, and he was then saved by Compton and his interpretation for the existence of quanta (photon), then both Davisson/Germer and Thomson and Rupp went in that line, in their diffraction experiments explanation, which supported the duality.
But as my researches showed, diffraction can’t be answered in a single paper, rather it required comprehensive solutions and revisions to the previous statements and theories, started with Maxwell’s acceleration theory, these explanations are based on “The Magnetic Interaction,” which generated this debate, the followings are what we came up with:
-“The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism” gives the Flip-Flop mechanism for the light, at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/68_IJFPS_Sept_2014_72_79.pdf
- “The Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck' Constant” showed energy of light is carried by the magnetic field, which emerged from the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF) at: http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf
- “The Photoelectric Effect Radiation Based: With Atomic Model” it showed through Eq. (24) that the quanta (photon) was a big historical mistake which brought the quantum mechanics, this at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf
- “The Compton Effect Re-Visited”, showed the phenomena as a production of secondary Electromagnetic Radiation, at: http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdfhttp://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAA
- :The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained,“ contrary to the thought experiment by Richard Feynman, who stated that “we choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which is in the heart of quantum mechanics” [Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M., The Feynman Lectures in Physics Volume 3, Section 1–1, Addison–Wesley,1965.], the phenomena is resolved at: http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf
From these papers we managed to explain the Electron Diffraction in a paper title:
- “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Fields Interactions within Crystals)”
Published by: IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 8, Issue 5 Ver. II (Sep - Oct. 2016), PP 99-116
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf
My conclusion to this debate is that, the ideas expressed in my paper “The Magnetic Interaction,” are correct and the micro-world can be explained in the classical manner, and that could have been possible if scientists in the early twentieth century knows Eq. (8) in the “The Magnetic Interaction” and Eq. (24) in the “The Photoelectric Effect Radiation Based: With Atomic Model”.
Finally, as the credit for the above researches goes directly to the Research-gate, this scientific institution which was created as platform, to enabled us to debate and focus on search to come up with what is required to make the scientific knowledge more meaningful within the logic of human sense; I would like to voice my gratitude for that, and I would like to thank you and thanks also to Graham Peter, Joachim Pimiskern, Palash Gangopadhyay and Mohammad Ayaz Ahmed for their keen followings.
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf
Dr. Kai Fauth
Although I came up with several interested papers during the past period, unfortunately I didn't hears any comment from you, so I went back to Compton effect, the paper which rescued Einstein in 1923, when Compton claimed electromagnetic radiation contain quantum (photon), with momentum p=hv/c, but I discovered this formula was derived from Einstein mass energy equivalent with Planck's radiation formula, and we proved his claim is untrue, and the momentum used by Compton can't remove electron from atom, this in:
“Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_QQuantu
This paper could be among the last to prove my point regarding the “Magnetic Interaction.”
Please I am waiting for any comment from your side.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics