Contradictions between Maxwell theory and QM

Below is an email from a professor of mathematics on Contradictions between Maxwe ll theory and QM:

Victor, I see nothing wrong with for some one relationship with our God is

rather personal and for someone else it is rather social (communal). God

loves us all. So, we have to love each other to honor loving God. We must

remember that Christ told us to "love our enemies". This made me cry! This

made me strong.

As far as I can see, there is a disconnect, or even contradiction between

Maxwell and QM.

1. The so called Planck's quantization of light was a mathematical trick

to resolve the tension between the Maxwell's theory and the blackbody

radiation experiment. Even Planck himself did not believe in it. He was

embarrassed to propose it.

2. This idea of quantized light wave combined with Einstein's relativity

theory created a mess which proves that fh = 1 for all frequency f.

3. Suntora showed that the reason why we had problem with the blackbody

radiation had nothing to do with Maxwell. It was that we assumed that the

light wave was harmonic wave instead of monochromatic wave, which lead to

the puzzle of the blackbody radiation.

4. So the quantum theory of electromagnetic wave is false.

5. So the only decent conclusion we can draw on the issue of relation

between QM and Maxwell is that there is no reason to believe in QM. Even

at the level of em waves, QM and Maxwell do not agree.

6. This however does not exclude the issue of the inherent problem with

Maxwell's theory itself.

7 We have some disturbing irregularity in the development of the theory

of em wave emission. The issue started with Maxwell's modification of

AmpĆØre's law to include a displacement current, which was not a standard

conduction current. It was the rate of change of electric field rather.

This change was purely mathematical and was not backed up by ontology.

Indeed, electric field is an abstract concept which violates the

action-reaction law (or equivalently the conservation of momentum law).

This provided the conservation of charge in case of the change of electric

field. The modified AmpĆØre's law is

∇×B=((4Ļ)/c)J+(1/c)(∂/(∂t))E

where c=(1/(Īµ₀Ī¼₀)). The problem here is that Maxwell obtained this

equation only under the assumption that the the charges involved move with

constant speed, no acceleration. But he used this reformed law under the

assumption that charges involved are moving with acceleration to derive

the em wave equation.

This is precisely the same logical error as in the derivation of e=mc²

by Einstein discussed in the forgoing. His Special Theory of

Relativity Kinematics was built under the assumption that no mass

involved is moving with acceleration. Yet he obtained e=mc² under the

assumption that the masses involved are moving under acceleration.

8. Addition to 2.

To avoid the energy of photon

E=mc²=((m₀)/(√(1-(v/c)²)))c²

diverge by setting v=c, Einstein assumed that m₀, the rest mass of photon,

is zero. This makes the photon's energy to be 0/0. Considering that 0x=0

is an indefinite linear equation meaning that any number can be a solution

of this equation, Einstein assumed that 0/0 is any number and chose

0/0=hf.

With this convention, Einstein fully developed relativistic theory of

photons.

It is unfortunate that mathematically 0/0 and indefinite 0x=0 are

different things. 0/0 involves division by 0 which is invalid on

mathematics while 0x=0 does not. This mathematical error immediately

yields the following physical contradiction at the relativistic

energy-momentum relation:

e=√((cp)²+(m₀)²c⁴)=cp=((m₀vc)/(√(1-((v/c))²)))=(0/0)cv=c²hf=hf.

From this we conclude that hf=1.

Akira Kanda

Toronto University

P.S. I will develop further on this.

---

My response:

Dear Prof. Akira Kanda

Thanks for your comment on my personal contact with God. I agree that God revealed Himself in many ways, like watching the ocean wave, or just starring at the night sky.

Our paper on Maxwell -Dirac isomorphism is intended as counter-argument to so many claims by QM proponents that QM supersede classical physics.

We disagree. We submit instead that a viewpoint that QM founders borrowed extensively from classical physics, that we can prove that the celebrated Dirac equation is a result of transformation of Maxwell by virtue of Pauli matrice.

Humbly yours,

Victor

Dikirim dari ponsel cerdas Samsung Galaxy saya.

## Komentar

## Posting Komentar