Can Maxwell's equations predict Quanta

[DryLab]

Back in 1994 Robert Kemp published a paper in which he claims to have modified Maxwells equations to reflect the quantum nature of the universe.

Here is a conversion of his original.

In so doing, he suggests the cause of the quantum nature of the universe is an Electromagnetic Saturation Constant of nature from which Planck's constant derives.

I wonder if that can possibly be so.

[Qfwfq]

From "The Brown Theory of Planck’s ‘Action’":

According to Brown; if photons consist only of the fields and Einstein’s photon postulate, e = hv, holds, then the electromagnetic amplitude of a photon can not be a variable. This is because Maxwell’s equations clearly state that the rate of change of electromagnetic fields determines the energy, and Planck’s constant clearly states that frequency alone determines the energy. Thus, frequency is the rate of change of the electromagnetic fields. Furthermore if frequency alone determines the energy, then the peak electromagnetic amplitude of the photon’s sine-wave must be constant.

This guy simply does not understand the mathematics of classical electromagnetism, he can't very well presume to quantize it in his own new way.

[DryLab]

That is easy to say. You didn't point out any mathematical errors. Your quote is a portion of Kemps paper where he is disagreeing with portions of the Brown Photon Theory Kemp had a masters in physics when he wote that paper. He is now a senior physicist working for Hughes Aircraft Company.

[Qfwfq]

Yes, it is easy to say, because it is so obvious to anyone reading that paragraph with a proper understanding of electromagnetism. I don't need to point out any mathematical errors because no mathematics are done in that paragraph. The author simply talks crap. It looked like you were asking people's opinion about it but you now seem intent on defending this guy, I'm not the only one you'll find around here able to knock it over.

Originally Posted by DryLab

Your quote is a portion of Kemps paper where he is disagreeing with portions of the Brown Photon Theory

If this is so (he doesn't make it so clear) why doesn't he simply point out how ludicrous the arguments are? It looks to me like he is stating the things I quoted.

Originally Posted by DryLab

Kemp had a masters in physics when he wote that paper. He is now a senior physicist working for Hughes Aircraft Company.

So what? That doesn't persuade me of anything, I have the equivalent of a good masters in physics. Aircraft have nothing to do with quantizing electromagnetism, something which has already been done.

[DryLab]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

So what? That doesn't persuade me of anything, I have the equivalent of a good masters in physics. Aircraft have nothing to do with quantizing electromagnetism, something which has already been done.

Kemp attempted to modify Maxwell's equations so that they predict the quantum nature of the universe. He claims to have done that. Did you even scan through the paper?

Originally Posted by Kemp

Conclusion

This is just what Brown predicted in his photon theory. Brown predicted that the electromagnetic amplitude or saturation constant would be a constant from which Planck’s constant derives. This is saying that the electromagnetic saturation causes Planck’s constant. The changing fields are what propagate through space, therefore, a constant that would cause Planck’s constant would govern the changing fields. This new constant also unifies the quantum concept to Maxwell’s equations. Hence, it was shown that electromagnetic saturation produces Planck’s constant which in turn produces electronic charge. The electronic charge is the curvature of the medium surrounding the amplitudes. It is also proven that the electromagnetic change is quantized and equivalent to electromagnetic energy. Hence, Maxwell’s equations are quantized. In concluding, this is only the beginning. The fun starts when the equations for quantized electromagnetic change and energy are analyzed in different media.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by DryLab

Did you even scan through the paper?

How else would I have quoted a piece of it, and given my opinion?

[DryLab]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

How else would I have quoted a piece of it, and given my opinion?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Opinion noted I don't agree with you.

[Erasmus00]

As far as I can tell, the paper is full of gibberish connected rather tangentially with math. The author feels the need to define such concepts as flux, angular frequency, etc.

Now, his equations are obviously gibberish. Consider the following taken from the end of the paper:



The first term has units of potential (voltage) the second also has units of voltage. The third(Kemp's modification), however, has units of energy. This mismatch is not allowed. The rest of Kemp's modifications have similar problems. Its gibberish.
-Will