HOME +    ★ Book mark Total visitor No. : 431,973 Korean Login  Photons have no characteristics of the duality of light (particle-wave duality). The reason for this is that electromagnetic waves are used to a form of releasing the oscillation energy held by the charge to return to a stable state when the charge of an electric dipole is oscillated (or revolved + oscillated) by external energy. Hello. The following sections provide information on (1) how an electron emits electromagnetic waves, (2) how Planck constant is derived, (3) the difference between quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, (4) whether the Unified field theory is necessary because of the emission of electromagnetic waves, (5) how to describe the electromagnetic spectrum using electrical and magnetic dipoles, (6) the problem of the wave equations of the electromagnetic wave as derived by Maxwell's equations, (7) why the latter causes problems in relativistic electromagnetics, etc., and, the overall basic concepts of physics will be explained. The hint to the solution of these problems describing the above mechanisms is that they can be solved by theoretically deriving Planck constant. Please read the following, and I would appreciate it if you could leave a comment. Do you know how electromagnetic waves are emitted? Moreover, can you explain all the wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum by using total radiated power? Please take this opportunity to understand why electromagnetic waves are emitted and experience all aspects of physics through a dialogue between friend Q and friend A that can explain the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves through the vibrations of an electron. Q : We know that when we supply alternating currents to a capacitor plate, electromagnetic waves are emitted between the capacitor plates, as seen in the Hertz experiment. Is there any other way apart from this method to release the electromagnetic waves? A : Yes, there is. Basically, as shown in the figure below, there are 2 electric dipoles and 2 magnetic dipoles, making 4 altogether. Among them, when the electric charge oscillates with a constant amount of charge, as shown below, there is an electric dipole that only undergoes oscillation and a magnetic dipole that oscillates and revolves at the same time. The interesting fact here is that by converting an oscillating and revolving magnetic dipole into a magnetic dipole experiencing only revolutions in alternating current, the vector potential, the electric field, and the magnetic field can be obtained as described in the reference given below, and the total radiated power of the magnetic dipole can be obtained as follows. Reference: Griffiths, D. J. Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th Ed. Ch. 11 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017). In this book, you can find the explanation on the method for calculating the total radiation of magnetic dipoles. What? Wasn't Planck’s constant an experimental value?Well, then, photons are not particles!And ~~~~~~ So, you mean that the principal quantum number we know well is in fact, the oscillation number! Right, the principle quantum number is the oscillation number. In other words, because the electron must oscillate and revolve with an integer oscillation number, energy is emitted discontinuously when the electron transitions into another energy level. The reason why we have Planck’s constant when an energy transition occurs is because an electron oscillates and revolves, causing electromagnetic waves to be emitted as time-dependent magnetic dipole radiation. As you know, and as shown in quantum mechanics, the way in which the electron emits the energy it holds is the same mechanism as we know from when the electron falls from high to low potentials. However, the difference is that it emits infrared rays with a large oscillation number and then emits its remaining oscillation energy in the visible or ultraviolet region with a small oscillation number to return to a stable state. In this case, we can see that the law of conservation of energy holds. The paper below explains the above contents in detail. If you read it, it will make sense soon. Thanks ~ In general, I think that the energy should be large if the oscillation number is large. By the way, why is the energy small? Ah, you can see in the figure below that the larger the oscillation number, the smaller the angular frequency becomes. The answer is given by the revolution radius. In other words, the greater the distance between the proton and the electron, the smaller the strength of the electric field intensity. Now, can you understand how electrons emit infrared and visible light, depending on the oscillation number of an electron? Aha~! So, that’s why the emission of light is discontinuous! Now we can understand the world of atoms more easily. Uh? By the way, look at the picture below, there is a zero given as oscillation number in the modified Bohr’s energy level. What could this be? Ah ~, it means that the electron only revolves, without any oscillation, when there is no external energy. That's right, every object in a stationary state needs energy to oscillate. Yes, for example, an object hanging on a spring must be supplied with energy first to be able to oscillate. And from a mass point of view, the energy of the object holding the vibration energy is released as sound or friction energy according to the law of conservation of energy and then stopped. Then, you mean, there is no duality of light and photons are not particles? So then, is Bohr's theory wrong? All aspects of the theory are not wrong; however, some aspects of Bohr's orbit are misinterpreted. If then, here, I have a very important question. Einstein proved that a photon is a particle and wave both with the photoelectric effect. Can you refute it? Of course! First, as you know, the experiment of the photoelectric effect was published in 1905, and the studies on the Bohr theory and the De Broglie wavelength were published in 1913 and 1924, respectively. What does that have to do with the photoelectric effect? Yes, it is related. Because Einstein didn't know the energy level at that time. However, now, we know that the electron will pop out when it is energized with a high frequency in order to be excited to a high energy level. So, Einstein experimented only with light intensity and frequency, and of course, it is normal that an electron is not released at high light intensities at low frequencies but at high frequencies at a low intensity. And so far, no one apart from Einstein, has ever proven mathematically why photons should be electromagnetic waves and have Planck’s constant. Aha ~ now, I understand. I have another question; can you explain the atomic spectrum? Of course! Because I theoretically derived Planck’s constant, I can explain all of the spectral series we know. But, to save time, please read the paper below, and then you can understand this in detail. Here you have a bonus chance. I will give \$ 10,000 to anyone who can look into my paper and prove mathematically that there is something wrongwith the process of deriving Planck’s constant ~ ^^ In here, if the electromagnetic description is correct, how is it different from the quantum mechanical one? Look at the picture below and you'll understand right away. Aha ~! So, quantum mechanics is the analysis of the oscillation of an electron using wave functions! Moreover, because quantum mechanics eliminates the function of time, it is expressed as a time-independent energy level, and electromagnetism is derived as a function of time, so it's expressed in terms of energy levels per unit time. Until now, I have never been able to understand this because of seeing it only from different perspectives, but after you compared quantum mechanics with classical electromagnetism in the picture above, I can understand it clearly. If then, will Schrödinger’s cat be gone? Of course! But I'll explain it in detail later. By the way, you say that there is no Unified field theory, why not? In fact, we know many difficult things, but we don't seem to understand the basic concepts of physics. What does that mean? As you know, there are seven basic units in physics (length, time, mass, temperature, ampere, luminosity, and mole). We take these seven terms and can quantify all the phenomena of nature. Among these, the only units that can quantify matter are mass and charge. So, when we express the properties of all matter, such as electrons and elementary particles, we express them in terms of mass and charge. What does this have to do with Unified field theory? It matters! What is the basic unit of matter that must be considered in the Universal gravitation or the gravitational field? That should be the mass. What, then, is the basic unit of matter that must be considered in electric and magnetic fields? That should be the charge. Then, for weak and strong interactions? What is the basic unit of matter that must be considered in this case? Nothing? Yes, that's right! We don't have a basic unit for weak and strong interactions. In other words, weak and strong interactions must be expressed using the basic units of charge or mass. If we prove that X-rays or gamma rays are emitted from a charge point of view, we can see that the weak and strong interactions are electromagnetic forces within the elementary particles. How do we know? We can understand it easily by looking at the picture below. ?????, What is this? Electromagnetic waves of elementary particles can be expressed using electric dipoles! Actually, elementary particles only oscillate, and the electrons in the atoms oscillate and revolve to emit electromagnetic waves~. That means that both can be expressed in terms of the total radiated power~. Aha~ so, you mentioned earlier that when a constant charge oscillates, it emits electromagnetic waves. That's right, elementary particles with a constant charge, when vibrating, emit electromagnetic waves called electric dipole radiation, such as X-rays or gamma rays. Doesn't this mean that we may not necessarily need something like the Unified field theory? Then, how can you tell if X-rays and gamma rays are weak or strong interactions? It's simple. The shorter the distance between elementary particles, the larger the electric force, and to induce vibration in the charges of elementary particles, a strong external energy is needed, and the intensity of electromagnetic waves varies according to the strength of the electric force. The narrower the gap between the elementary particles, the greater the energy, which means that they must have a very high temperature. So, we can find the origin of these particles probably at the time when the temperature was at its highest. Because at that temperature, when elementary particles are separated by vibrational energy, they will release unknown elementary particles. And in the picture below, there is a formula for the total radiated power as a function of electric and magnetic dipoles. Substituting the distance of the electrical dipole into the equation tells us why X-rays and gamma rays are emitted. And if there is an elementary particle, as there is also always its anti-particle, we may also know about why it should exis. What is important is that from the perspective of the matter called charge, electromagnetic wave is used to a form of releasing the oscillation energy held by the charge to return to a stable state when the charge of an electric dipole is oscillated (or revolved + oscillated) by external energy. Here, can't we look at it in terms of the mass, and not the charge? Of course not! In the world of atoms, Universal gravitation is ~10−39 N smaller than the electric force. So, in the world of atoms, we ignore universal gravitation. This is also the case for the wave equations of quantum mechanics! We know well that the wave equations of an electromagnetic wave induced by Maxwell's equations have no problem. By the way, here, what’s wrong? And is it true that if anyone derives the wave equations of the electromagnetic wave by distinguishing between the charge generating electric fields and the charge generating magnetic fields, you give that person 1 million dollars? Of course! I am so sure that I can make this declaration!!! Actually, Maxwell derived the wave equations of the electromagnetic wave by using Faraday's law without distinguishing between the charge that generates an induced current and the charge that oscillates while generating a magnetic field. But because those charges are different, we can't derive the Maxwell’s wave equations mathematically. If you derive them considering this distinction, you'll have a million dollars. Regarding the problem of Maxwell’s wave equations, the crucial thing to know is that Hertz experimented with Henry's self-induction method to achieve the emission of electromagnetic waves. That's why the frequency of electromagnetic waves does not include Henry's mutual induction coefficient but includes its self-induction coefficient. But we’re using the Maxwell’s wave equations well. Then, what's the problem? That's right, we have no problem using the wave equations of electromagnetic waves. But the problem is relativistic electromagnetism! What does this have to do with relativistic electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations? The problem has occurred because we don't know the definition of matter. Many scientists still don't know the definition of matter, that's why. As mentioned earlier, matter is expressed in terms of mass and charge. For example, an electron is defined by its mass, 𝑚𝑒=9.1×10−31kg, and its charge 𝑞0=𝑒−=1.6×10−19C. These values are not absolute values, but they are relative values for humans, which are used to express matter. If we don't define values in relative terms, the seven basic units of physics and the discipline of physics as we know it would disappear. Because, if several different lengths, times, masses, etc., were used, scientific communication would have been paralyzed, so it would not have been possible to develop science. For example, if King Sejong's definition of the 24 Hangul characters is changed arbitrarily, language-based conversations of Hangul will not work. What does this have to do with relativistic electromagnetism? It matters, but Einstein ignored it! What!??? How? In electromagnetism, the charge that generates an electric field and the charge that produces a magnetic field are different, right? First, people don't understand something very important about electromagnetics, which are the electric and magnetic fields, and the electric and magnetic forces. We know it well~! Maybe, we do know them. But with regards to relativistic electromagnetism, we haven’t fully understood them yet. We mentioned that all matter is expressed in units of mass and charge, right? Then, how many particles do we need for our Lorentz forces? Three~ That's right, so in order for an electric force to occur, in what state do these two charges need to be? Of course, it doesn't matter if one charge is moving or stationary, but the second one must be stationary. Then what do the two charges have to do to generate a magnetic force? Umm, magnetic forces are generated when the charges move in the magnetic field. In that case, I will ask a question. Is there always a magnetic field in free space? No? Then, how can the magnetic field exist? Of course, there must be a charge and it must move. That's right, when a charge is moving with constant velocity, a current is generated, and when a current is generated, a magnetic field is generated according to Ampère's law? Sure, because there's a charge, the electric field is always present, and as the charge is in constant velocity, it is going to generate an electric current, and when a current occurs, a magnetic field is generated according to Ampère's law. That's right, the attractive and repulsive forces originating from the N and S poles of the two magnetic fields generated by the movement of two electric charges are called magnetic forces. In other words, the two charges must move to generate a magnetic force. What’s this topic you want to talk about? Lorentz forces require charges from three different particles, but they are generally not concerned with the masses of these particles. However, looking at the Lorentz force in the equations below, the subscripts of the electric and magnetic fields show that the stationary charge that emits the electric field and the charge that emits the magnetic field are used without distinction. Then you can't distinguish between electric and magnetic fields, as the theory of relativity says.  Wow, that's right! How should I express it! To accurately express the Lorentz force, subscripts should be written separately for the electric field charge and the magnetic field charge as shown in the following formula for three particles. Then, according to the Gauss law of the electric field, there are three electric fields and two magnetic fields due to a charge that moves according to Ampère's law. Oh, we should express the Lorentz force like this! It's not over yet. The most important thing remains yet to be said. What? Is there something else? Yes, look at the expressions below. What do you think is the problem? I don't think there's a problem. Yes, but as mentioned earlier, all particles are quantified by mass and charge. Right, but what does that have to do with the equations above? It matters! So how many particles do you need in the above expression Four~ That's right, we need four particles. The previous Lorentz force required one stationary charge and two charges at constant velocity, but the Lorentz force above and the Minkowski force contain an accelerated mass (that means that the velocity is not constant). What is it about? Look closely at the picture below, you can see that the accelerated motion of a particle with mass 𝑚 and charge 𝑞 is different from the constant velocity of a particle with mass 𝑚0and charge 𝑞0. So, the particle with mass 𝒎 and the particle with mass 𝒎𝟎and charge 𝒒𝟎are different! Yes, if the charge 𝑞 of mass 𝑚 is defined, it interacts with the three charges on the right side, resulting in an additional electric force and two magnetic forces. In addition, linear momentum is described from the viewpoint of mass, not charge. So, the force on the left side, which is the force in terms of the mass, and the force on the right side, which is in terms of the charge, have no physical relationship. But, as you know, we are saying that the left side and the right side are equal in the above equation? That's right, for that, the mass 𝑚 on the left side and the mass 𝑚0on the right side must be equal. To do that, the acceleration on the left side should be a motion with constant velocity, but the only way to express acceleration at constant velocity is to have a uniform circular motion of constant velocity. In general, we know that the matter with mass 𝑚0 and charge 𝑞0 is in a translational motion about the theory of relativity, but, the matter with mass 𝑚 is in a uniform circular motion, right? What is it then. Is this the theory of relativistic electromagnetism? Oh really? Then relativistic electromagnetism is not a mathematical problem but a simple physical interpretation. That’s right! In summary, the theory of relativity states that when a stationary observer sees an object moving at constant velocity, it is moving but seems to be stationary to an observer moving at the same velocity. If we break this down, it is correct from the viewpoint of the mass, however from the viewpoint of the charge, it is not correct. From the point of view of the charge, the particle has an electric field in accordance with Gauss' law, and because the charge is moving, it emits a magnetic field according to Ampère's law, that is, the observer (charge) in the fixed inertial frame feels only the electric force while the moving observer (charge) feels the electric and magnetic forces in accordance with Gauss’ and Ampère's laws. So, relativistic electromagnetism can distinguish between the electric and magnetic fields. Anyway, if anyone mathematically proves what you proved (that the relativistic Lorentz force was wrong), \$10,000 is awarded, right? Sure!!!!!! Thank you for reading!For more information, please see the following papers and presentations. 