Validity Of Planck's Constant

[FrankM]

Very little was known about the generation and reception of electromagnetic fields when Max Planck presented his theorem, now known as the Planck postulate. From what I have read about Planck's Constant, it was assumed that light only had transverse fields, and all Planck's measurements were made with that assumption. Photonic researchers are producing field orientations where a component of a field has longitudinal polarization. Is Planck's constant valid for EM fields where a field or a portion of a field has longitudinal polarization?

[FrankM]

I note there have been 130 views and no replies. I need to ask a simpler question about electromagnetic fields.

 

Does the magnetic moment of an electron play a role in determining the polarization of the electromagnetic fields produced by a time-varying current?

[sigurdV]

I note there have been 130 views and no replies. I need to ask a simpler question about electromagnetic fields.

 

Does the magnetic moment of an electron play a role in determining the polarization of the electromagnetic fields produced by a time-varying current?

LOL! Youre funny as well! Ive been trying to elicite responses from questions both here and elsewhere but responses has been rather poor. I guess your asking too much of us... definitely of me!

Perhaps You would like to answer some Questions? (yes/no)?

Edited April 26, 2013 by sigurdV

[FrankM]

LOL! Youre funny as well! Ive been trying to elicite responses from questions both here and elsewhere but responses has been rather poor. I guess your asking too much of us... definitely of me!

Perhaps You would like to answer some Questions? (yes/no)?

The two questions I have asked are fundamental to our understanding of electromagnetic fields. Earlier this year I actually put the Planck's Constant issue in a paper I had submitted to a well known technical journal. It was rejected based upon peer view objections. I was provided with the official peer review comments and none mentioned the Planck's Constant issue. I am rewriting the paper, simplifying it, with a new title, to reflect some of the peer review comments. The material in the paper is fully supported by Maxwell's Equations, which suggests that a popular theory, that was not mentioned by name, is wrong. The paper involves my question about polarization. I will not mention the Planck's Constant issue in the revision.

 

My previously published paper titled, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants", avoided any conjecture that would have made it controversial. I had experienced multiple rejections of the paper over several years. Based upon a comment by an old-school mathematician that reviewed my paper, I rewrote the Introduction, no changes to anything else from the most recent rejection. The paper went through peer review and was published. Oddly, I was asked to provide a Benefits section, which was accepted verbatim, and it contained material that had been in the Introduction of the rejected earlier version. After acceptance, it was a year and a month before actual publication.

[FrankM]

Planck's constant is being pushed around. I was unaware of the existence of the document until recently. The document does not change my original posting question, as the document does not mention polarization.

 

Steiner, R. “History and progress on accurate measurements of the Planck constant,” 2013 Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 016101 doi:10.1088/0034-4885 76/1/016101

 

History Planck's Constant Measurements

 

Some researchers are using the term non-spherical decay in their reports rather than polarization. Some reports use non-spherical without the hyphen.