QED meets GR

[kcdodd]

I feel compelled to ask: do you have equations for showing the electric field around a single, solitary, electron that isn't interacting with any other EM field/particle?

Yes. Classically one would model the electron as a small sphere of the classical electron radius and with a total charge of -e. In this model rho, the charge density, is a step function equaling rho_e = -3*e/(4*pi*r_e^3) inside the sphere, and zero outside. The radius of the sphere is of order 10^-15 m. One angstrom, by comparison, is 10^-10 m which is the order of the atomic radius. So a classical electron is one-hundred-thousandth the size of an atom. However, on such a short length scale quantum effects would surly dominate and so QFT is needed as you get this close.

However, on large length and energy scales (such as a plasma) this model works just fine and the field can be found by directly plugging in the classical charge density of the electron to maxwell's equations. Of course on that scale 10^-15 m is practically zero and so the distribution is often just approximated as a delta function.

I admit, I'm lost by the majority of the formulae being tossed around in this thread, but from the bits I do understand I am honestly curious to know whether it CAN be experimentally shown that a solitary electron (or other charged particle, for that matter) that isn't interacting with any electric or magnetic field (presumably from one or more other charged particles) has an inherent electric field.

If you are asking if one can measure a field without interaction, then no. That is asking if one can make a measurement without interacting with the thing they are measuring. The math is a model by which predictions are made. johanfprins has claimed that there is a difference in prediction by assuming there is no field from just one electron, but he has yet to specify what that difference is mathematically. If in fact he did find one then he could prove whether or not there is in fact no field around just one particle.

As a side note. If one could hypothetically interact with an electron without other charged particles (ie some other force), then according to the consequences of maxwell's equations one could verify the field is still there. The electron itself could still interact with it's own field, which means the field could be detected by reaction forces. If there were no field then there would be no reaction forces.

[johanfprins]

Schroedinger's equation cannot work if you do not include kinetic energy. There is only kinetic energy and potential energy in the hamiltonian.

It is exactly here where modern physics went wrong. The electron wave is not determined by the "hamiltonian" of a "particle" with rest mass m. It only looks like it is since Schroedinger's equation is an approximation that uses rest mass as input while the mass must be the output when solving the correct wave equation: i.e.the rest mass is really the energy of a "free electron" which must be calculated from a wave equation which do not use rest mass as an input. It is for this reason that Schroedinger's approximate wave equation works fairly well for bound states but not for a free electron.

I ask, if the kinetic energy of the wave is identically zero, then how exactly do you define a Hamiltonian operator with a varying potential energy and get an eigenstate of the energy? You clearly have no understanding of anything you just said.

Why must a wave equation be determined by the hamiltonian of a particle with mass m? If you are willing to think outside the wrong dogma with which you have been indoctrinated, you will realise that an electron is a stationary light wave which is localised by the curvature of space at its rest position within its inertial rest frame. By not using the rest mass as an input but using the correct boundary conditions to generate the rest mass as the output (as it must be) it is possible to derive the boundary conditions (responsible the stationary light wave =electron) as a radius of curavture along a fourth space dimension. For an electron it is in the order of 10^(-14). For "particles" with higher mass, the radius of curvature is less. In other words, Einstein's general theory of relativity is already commensurate with the correct wave mechanics of matter. What was taught to us as "tunnelling tails" are really the curvature of space around the mass-intensity of a matter wave.

NOTE: AT REST. There is no uncertainties in the position and momentum of the wave's centre-of-mass: This is as mandatated by Galileo's law of inertia. Therefore the "spin" of the electron has NOTHING to do with the rotational movement of an electron's charge but is the magnetic field component of the stationary light wave which we observe as "an electron".

The total energy of the bound electron is indeed less then the rest mass energy. Why? Because T + V < 0, assuming V->0 at infinity. Clearly mc^2 > mc^2 + T + V (neglecting relativistic effects). What is so special about this anyway? You added a negative number and got a smaller number? Congrats man you solved the big physics problem.

I want to first go to your next remark before returning to the case of the electron which is totally different from the earth since an accelerating electron always emits EM radiation.

By your logic the earth does not have any kinetic energy either! It is in a bound orbit which means T + V < 0, which also means its total mass energy is less then its rest mass energy. Once again you show you don't know what you are talking about.

The earth's energy is not less than its rest mass energy since it does not emit EM radiation when it accelerates. Let us look at a simpler case, which can easily be extrapolated to an orbit by a satellite around the earth. The conclusion is the same.

Assume that we have an asteroid very far from the earth so that we can set its potential energy relative to the earth is V=0. And assume that this asteroid is stationary relative to the earth so that at this faraway position one can write that T+V=0. Now assume that this asteroid accelerates directly towards earth so that when it reaches earth it will crash into earth "head-on". As it moves towards earth, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy so that right up to impact T+V=0. Thus the total energy with which the asteroid started was mc^2 and is still mc^2 when it reaches earth.

Now replace the asteroid with an electron and the earth with a proton. As the electron accelerates towards the proton, it emits EM radiation and the faster the acceleration, the more EM energy is emitted which reduces the kinetic energy. Now it is simple to estimte that before the electron reaches the proton, the kinetic energy will again become zero. It is at this point when the electron wave cannot move as if its is "a particle" anymore. It now to interacts with the proton to form a standing wave.

Now assume that the electron approaches the proton so that it gets trapped in an orbit around the proton. It will still radiate EM energy and the orbit will be a spiral. Again an orbit will be reached at which the electron has no kinetic energy. To reduce its energy further the electron now has to emit mass energy SINCE THERE IS NO KINETIC ENERGY left. This is the interface between classical mechanics and wave mechanics. Thus the time-indpendent waves that form around the proton has no kinetic energy. It is for this reason why they can exist without radiating away energy as a free electron must when being accelerated. There is thus no sharp division between "classical mechanics" and "quantum" wave mechanics: They interface smoothly when the boundary conditions change.

Classical EM is exactly that, classical. I never claimed Classical EM could predict quantum behavior. When I derived that I clearly stated it was a classical approximation just as Bohr did.

It is not a physically acceptable approximation since an electron can only orbit a proton when it is much further away than the distances Bohr used. Experimental evidence proves that the radial distance at which this can happen is in the order of mm not angstrom.

A quantum treatment would give a similar result (ie the proton contributes very little to the moment).

But you calculated that it does contribute since it can be neglected owing to the proton's mass: And I then asked you why the mass of the positron can also be neglected for positronium when you use your "classical approximation": And you refuse to answer this direct question. The fact is that Bohr's "classical approximation" is not real physics at all since as I have pointed out above an electron can only circle a proton at distances larger than mm's.

However, in the limit of high energy and length scales quantum behavior must reduce to classical behavior because it has been experimentally verified that systems behave that way.

This is also another of Bohr's fallacies (the so-called "correspondence principle". The fact is that you can obtain "quantum behaviour" for large scales and energies: For example, generating a Bose-Einstein condensate by cooling a suitable gas of atoms; and you can even diffract Buckey Balls.

I have given ways to test these predictions but you reject them because "they are not single particles",

You are seriously dishonest here. You have not described a single experiment which can be used to measure whether there is an electric field-energy around a "solitary charge".

You give no reason and no equation to show how it would be any different.

Unfortunately the cranks in charge of modern physics have come to believe that mathematics determine physics after Dirac advocated this approach (see below): Now this is real horseshit.

I ask for equations. You say you cannot provide them because they don't exist. Hah! What a load of horse shit.

There are two possibilities (1) there is a field (which you blindly want to believe) or (2) there is no field. If you REALLY do physics, the final arbiter must be experimental verification. It seems that you agree that it cannot be done experimentally and thus argue from mathematics that the field must be there; even though Feynman in his lectures stated very clearly that your mathematics at this point falls flat on its face. I have found that contrary to Feynman's claim this mathematics does not fall flat on its face when you assume that there is not such a field: And that is what I stated. Then you challenge me to give you eqations that will describe this non-existent field: Really; are you all there?!!

From Dirac's 1931 paper on so-called "monopoles":

Quantised Singularities in the Electromagnetic Field
P.A.M. Dirac
Received May 29, 1931

"The most powerful method of advance that can be suggested at present is to employ all the resources of pure mathematics in attempts to perfect and generalise the mathematical formalism that forms the existing basis of theoretical physics, and after each success in this direction, to try to interpret the new mathematical features in terms of physical entities"

So mathematics must determine physics not experimental facts! To repeat this is really horse shit!!

[johanfprins]

II feel compelled to ask: do you have equations for showing the electric field around a single, solitary, electron that isn't interacting with any other EM field/particle?

I will not respond here to the answers Dodd gave you above, since he uses concepts which even Feynman questioned in his lectures. Dodd wants to believe that one should not question these concepts since they are holy holy holy! The are not holy but more probably dead-wrong; since the requirement of "renormalistion" proves that they lead to results which have to be fudged to fit physics.

I admit, I'm lost by the majority of the formulae being tossed around in this thread, but from the bits I do understand I am honestly curious to know whether it CAN be experimentally shown that a solitary electron (or other charged particle, for that matter) that isn't interacting with any electric or magnetic field (presumably from one or more other charged particles) has an inherent electric field.

It cannot since you require another charge to do the measurement. Thus what you measure is the field between two charges not the field around a solitary charge. Furthermore, which field are you measuring, the one around charge no.1 or the one around charge no.2.? AND furthermore, the electric-field assumed to be present around a solitary charge is assumed to be radially symmetric. This is only possible if the solitary charge is surrounded by an equal opposite charge distributed over the surface of a sphere which has the solitary charge at its center,

Dr Prins gives a logical argument, in my opinion, that nothing so far has shown it does (i.e., the formulas assume charges interacting/moving relative to each other, and not being solitary).

Thank you. This is the crux of physics to only accept what you can measure and if you cannot measure what you assume, to realise that the opposite probability must be kept in mind as an alternative. The assumption that there is a field causes infinities which must be renormalised away. The latter is not physics.

Of course, on the other hand, I wonder if it is even possible to have a solitary charged particle and still have it be part of our continuum.

Very good question. However, an electric field is ONLY possible between separated charges as we know when we charge a capacitor. THe problen is that in QFT the electron is modelled as if a solitary electron has an electric-field around it AND this gives nonsensical results which have to be "normalised" away by sustracting infinity from infinity and then claiming that this must be equal to the electron's mass.

I mean, sure, inverse square drops off in power quite rapidly, but technically it always applies

But only between separate charges.

and effect even when that effect is so small as to be ignorable for all useful, and even most theoretical, purposes. To me, this implies any particle is always interacting with all other particles (you can just ignore most of the interactions because they are so small) and thus it must have an electric field due to those interactions ...

You have not proved that it must have an electric field when it is solitary but only that electric fields exist between particles. I do not dispute the latter.

[johanfprins]

II feel compelled to ask: do you have equations for showing the electric field around a single, solitary, electron that isn't interacting with any other EM field/particle?

I will not respond here to the answers Dodd gave you above, since he uses concepts which even Feynman questioned in his lectures. Dodd wants to believe that one should not question these concepts since they are holy holy holy! The are not holy but more probably dead-wrong; since the requirement of "renormalisation" proves that they lead to results which have to be fudged to fit physics.

I admit, I'm lost by the majority of the formulae being tossed around in this thread, but from the bits I do understand I am honestly curious to know whether it CAN be experimentally shown that a solitary electron (or other charged particle, for that matter) that isn't interacting with any electric or magnetic field (presumably from one or more other charged particles) has an inherent electric field.

It cannot since you require another charge to do the measurement. Thus what you measure is the field between two charges not the field around a solitary charge. Furthermore, which field are you measuring, the one around charge no.1 or the one around charge no.2.? AND furthermore, the electric-field assumed to be present around a solitary charge is assumed to be radially symmetric. This is only possible if the solitary charge is surrounded by an equal opposite charge distributed over the surface of a sphere which has the solitary charge at its center,

Dr Prins gives a logical argument, in my opinion, that nothing so far has shown it does (i.e., the formulas assume charges interacting/moving relative to each other, and not being solitary).

Thank you. This is the crux of physics to only accept what you can measure and if you cannot measure what you assume, to realise that the opposite possibilty must be kept in mind as an alternative. The assumption that there is a field causes infinities which must be renormalised away. The latter is not physics. Therefore it is far more likely that there is not such a field.

Of course, on the other hand, I wonder if it is even possible to have a solitary charged particle and still have it be part of our continuum.

Very good question. However, an electric field is ONLY possible between separated charges as we know when we charge a capacitor. THe problen is that in QFT the electron is modelled as if a solitary electron has an electric-field around it AND this gives nonsensical results which have to be "renormalised" away by subtracting infinity from infinity and then claiming that this must be equal to the electron's mass.

I mean, sure, inverse square drops off in power quite rapidly, but technically it always applies

But only between separate charges.

and effect even when that effect is so small as to be ignorable for all useful, and even most theoretical, purposes. To me, this implies any particle is always interacting with all other particles (you can just ignore most of the interactions because they are so small) and thus it must have an electric field due to those interactions ...

You have not proved that it must have an electric field when it is solitary but only that electric fields exist between particles. I do not dispute the latter.

[Nik]

Two apparently incompatible takes on reality, one's position hampered by commercial NDAs, the other by differences in terminology and convention, taken to the point of exasperation...

It is apparent that GR/SR is incomplete, due to quantum effects. Hopefully, the recent work that handles charges as 'diffuse' and thus bypasses the infuriating, un-observed infinities at short distances will move theory along...

My amateur understanding is that this effect resembles the observation that the gravitational pull diminishes to zero at the meta-centre of eg planet. On a quantum scale, this sounds like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle strikes again: Get close enough, and the source is felt as an extended object rather than a point, which allows tunneling among other weirdnesses...

I suppose it is a bit like neutrinos have none-zero rest mass: Given that, they inter-convert, resolving the Solar Neutrino Paradox...

[kcdodd]

It is exactly here where modern physics went wrong. The electron wave is not determined by the "hamiltonian" of a "particle" with rest mass m. It only looks like it is since Schroedinger's equation is an approximation that uses rest mass as input while the mass must be the output when solving the correct wave equation: i.e.the rest mass is really the energy of a "free electron" which must be calculated from a wave equation which do not use rest mass as an input. It is for this reason that Schroedinger's approximate wave equation works fairly well for bound states but not for a free electron.

Then give the exact, non-approximate equation. You are the one who cited Schroedinger's equation which is based on Hamiltonian mechanics. Don't cite it and then claim it is wrong when I point out the thing you cited doesn't explain what you said it explains. You are using a classic bait and switch tactic.

Now assume that the electron approaches the proton so that it gets trapped in an orbit around the proton. It will still radiate EM energy and the orbit will be a spiral. Again an orbit will be reached at which the electron has no kinetic energy. To reduce its energy further the electron now has to emit mass energy SINCE THERE IS NO KINETIC ENERGY left

I don't feel it is even possible to respond to this as it is not based on any physics that I know of. You must provide the mathematical process by which an electron can exist with no kinetic energy in a bound orbital and also how an electron radiates mass energy, whatever that even means.

It is not a physically acceptable approximation since an electron can only orbit a proton when it is much further away than the distances Bohr used. Experimental evidence proves that the radial distance at which this can happen is in the order of mm not angstrom.

Ok. Originally you argued there was no magnetic moment because the current from the motion of the proton canceled the motion of the electron. I responded directly to that model. Now you say there is no motion at all and the result is really based on some other physics. So keep your stories straight. However, I am not going to defend a classical approximation any further that went by the waste side when real QM was discovered. I would be interested in looking for a full QM treatment.

As for positronium, please cite your evidence. I don't deal with positronium a whole lot.

This is also another of Bohr's fallacies (the so-called "correspondence principle". The fact is that you can obtain "quantum behaviour" for large scales and energies: For example, generating a Bose-Einstein condensate by cooling a suitable gas of atoms; and you can even diffract Buckey Balls.

A condensate can only form at sufficiently low energies. It is hardly a high energy scale. Pick again.

You are seriously dishonest here. You have not described a single experiment which can be used to measure whether there is an electric field-energy around a "solitary charge".

I have but you rejected it because the magnetic field which would cause an electron to accelerate had to be generated by other particles. You claim that somehow the presence of the other particles is what allows the electron to radiate when it accelerates around in a magnetic field. The fact is that the electron radiation does not depend on those other particles being there and is only a consequence of the electron interacting with it's own field because it is accelerating. If it's own field were not there it would not interact with it and cause radiation. The same would be true if the acceleration was caused by anything. However, the only other force to use is gravity but it is so weak a practical experiment on earth would be impossible.

It seems that you agree that it cannot be done experimentally and thus argue from mathematics that the field must be there; even though Feynman in his lectures stated very clearly that your mathematics at this point falls flat on its face. I have found that contrary to Feynman's claim this mathematics does not fall flat on its face when you assume that there is not such a field: And that is what I stated. Then you challenge me to give you eqations that will describe this non-existent field: Really; are you all there?!!

No, you just don't accept it. You quote people's opinions as evidence an awful lot for someone who accuses others of holding doctrine as holy. You want to show the mathematics fails do it yourself and show how you fixed it.

So mathematics must determine physics not experimental facts! To repeat this is really horse shit!!

What is horse shit is claiming to have corrections to physics and not providing a single equation by which a prediction can be made and compared. You claim experimental fact is on your side but give no way by which a theory can be constructed to even compare to those facts. At least Dirac had math on his side. You have nothing on yours. You cannot even claim experiment because you have nothing to compare to experiment. How exactly do you plan a physicist would use your words of disdain against modern physics, and quotes from Feynman, and hand wavy arguments about Schroedinger's equation, that isn't actually Schroedinger's equation at all but something you made up but won't show, to calculate the magnetic moment or energy levels in an atom? How do you plan to do physics with words? You should be a philosopher not a physicist. They like to talk instead of making calculations just like you do. See what Feynman said about that.

[johanfprins]

Then give the exact, non-approximate equation.

I can only guess it just as Schhroedinger had to guess. It is done in my book in section 34. I know that you and icarus will now cliam that I only want to sell my book. But it should be obvious that if one takes on mainstream physics one cannot summarise all the arguments on a discussion-thread. But I will give a few pointers.

Suffice to say that my guess is to replace mass m in the Schroedinger equation from the equation that the mass of the electron is given by m=(h(nu))/(2c^2) where (nu) is the frequency of a light wave. You will note that is is the same relationship that Dirac came to by fudging his results. You then obtain a wave equation without mass as input which you can solve by assuming that "the electron" finds tself within a harmonic potential well with force constan K.

Why a harmonic potential well? Since this explains mass. Mass resists movement of the electron within its inertial reference frame. This means that the electron is in equilibrium, so that a restoring force with force constant K must be acting to keep it stationary. If you now solve for the ground state energy you find that the angular frequency (omega) of the resultant standing wave can be written as ((Kc^2)/ 2(hbar))^(1/3)^(1/3); and the concomitant mass follows as m=((hbarxomega)/2c^2). Now where does the force constant come from? The "electron" must experience a "virtual positive charge" forcing it back to equilibrium. One can model this charge as an "anti-charge) situated a distance d away along a fourth space dimension. The electric-field thus acts outside our three-dimensional space and not around the "electron". But when accelerating the electron it "vibrates" relative to this anti-charge and therefore it emits EM radiation. It also indicates that our universe starteed of with "matter" and "antimatter" separating over our three-dimensional space. That is probably why we have mostly matter: Our three-dimensional space forms a type of "matter anti-matter" dipole along a fourth space dimension.

Don't cite it and then claim it is wrong when I point out the thing you cited doesn't explain what you said it explains. You are using a classic bait and switch tactic.

Did I quote the Scgroedinger equation or the wave equation for matter waves. If I made a slip-up i apologise. It was really not intended to "bait and switch".

I don't feel it is even possible to respond to this as it is not based on any physics that I know of.

Well, I admit that I am not preaching the ossified dogma you wholheartedly believe in.

You must provide the mathematical process by which an electron can exist with no kinetic energy in a bound orbital and also how an electron radiates mass energy, whatever that even means.

It is even inherent is Schroedinger's wave. When you solve it for a standing wave its intensity does not change or move with time within the reference frame that the wave is "standing in". Obviously, a wave which does not move has zero momentum and thus zero kinetic energy. This has always been the case for all harmonic waves EVER.

Since the electron wave has a rest mass energy mc^2 when it is far way from the nucleus it must have less than this energy once it is around the nucleus. Thus it must have lost mass energy: And since we know that the electron radiates EM energy to be in one of these trapped states, it must have radiated away some of ts mass energy.

I am not going to defend a classical approximation any further that went by the waste side when real QM was discovered. I would be interested in looking for a full QM treatment.

Good: We are progessing on this issue.

As for positronium, please cite your evidence. I don't deal with positronium a whole lot.

I am also not working with positronium but did work in a lab where positronium spectroscopy has been done. I am not at that lab anymore and I do not have the time to look up such refrences. But I can assure you that I am correct.

A condensate can only form at sufficiently low energies. It is hardly a high energy scale. Pick again.

I note that you ignored Buckey Balls! Furthermore a laser beam is also a condensate and so is the superconducting phase that I extracted at room temperature from n-type diamond. No low energies involved in these cases. Only ground-state energies.

I have but you rejected it because the magnetic field which would cause an electron to accelerate had to be generated by other particles. You claim that somehow the presence of the other particles is what allows the electron to radiate when it accelerates around in a magnetic field.

Another dishonesty on you part. We did not discuss radiation from an electron circling a proton but the formation of a static magnetic field by such an electron.

The fact is that the electron radiation does not depend on those other particles being there and is only a consequence of the electron interacting with it's own field because it is accelerating.

I have explained above why this radiation occurs. There is an anti-charge involved. It has nothing to do with an electric-field surrounding the electron-charge is 3D space.

If there were no field it would not interact with it and cause radiation. The same would be true if the acceleration was caused by anything.

There is a field along the fourth dimension, but you claimed that there is a field within our three-dimensional space around the electron's charge. There is no such field: All the electric energy within three-dimensional space is the mass of the electron.

No, you just don't accept it. You quote people's opinions as evidence an awful lot for someone who accuses others of holding doctrine as holy.

Again you are devious here. I did not quote Feynman's opinion but his proof that this assumption leads to an infinite field-energy around the electron.

What is horse shit is claiming to have corrections to physics and not providing a single equation by which a prediction can be made and compared.

Not true: I am claiming experimental evidence in my book.

You claim experimental fact is on your side but give no way by which a theory can be constructed to even compare to those facts. At least Dirac had math on his side.

Mathematics which gives infinities that have to be fudged away is nothing else but voodoo!

You have nothing on yours. You cannot even claim experiment because you have nothing to compare to experiment.

Is the formation of a single wave at room temperature consisting of millions of entangled electrons not proof that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong?

How exactly do you plan a physicist would use your words of millions of disdain against modern physics, and quotes from Feynman,

I hope with an open mind as physicists are supposed to do.

and hand wavy arguments about Schroedinger's equation, that isn't actually Schroedinger's equation at all but something you made up but won't show,

You should not throw wild accusations around if you cannot prove them. I will ignore it as caused by you impetous young age.

to calculate the magnetic moment or energy levels in an atom? How do you plan to do physics with words?

I have said very clearly that in these cases Schroedinger's equation is a good approximation; but that it cannot be used to model a 'free electron".

You should be a philosopher not a physicist

I am an experimental philosopher. Not just calculating and fudging the results.

They like to talk instead of making calculations just like you do. See what Feynman said about that.

Again a serious, and libellous, accusation. I have done more calculations in my life that turned out to be correct than you will ever be able to do if you keep on following the fudgers.

[icarus]

- fields of a fourth spatial dimension
- virtual anti-charges due to an electron

I see why you are well-acquainted with voodoo physics Prins.

Fringe dwellers are an integral part of physics, in my opinion, it is only when they try to sell material to the lay-man that gets me going. It is a subtle kind of fraud charlatanism but it shouldn't stop fringe physics from being practised. Charlatans give fringe physics a bad name, if you have something fringey just put it out there and see what comes of it, don't try and rip people off with your crazy beliefs for gawd sakes.

[kcdodd]

I have not seen where you mention the title of your book.

Suffice to say that my guess is to replace mass m in the Schroedinger equation from the equation that the mass of the electron is given by m=(h(nu))/(2c^2) where (nu) is the frequency of a light wave. You will note that is is the same relationship that Dirac came to by fudging his results. You then obtain a wave equation without mass as input which you can solve by assuming that "the electron" finds tself within a harmonic potential well with force constan K.

So is it a light wave, or an electron trapped in a potential well in this fourth dimension? How does the fourth space dimension wave interacts with Schroedinger's equation? Just subsituting a frequency for mass really doesn't change much on it's own. An electric field in this 4th dimension, 5-D EM theory (ie 4 space and 1 time) just does not exist so if you expect anyone to follow this you had better give how that is done too. Of course you reject accepted EM theory anyway so you must basically start from scratch. I'll be waiting for those equations too.

It is even inherent is Schroedinger's wave. When you solve it for a standing wave its intensity does not change or move with time within the reference frame that the wave is "standing in". Obviously, a wave which does not move has zero momentum and thus zero kinetic energy. This has always been the case for all harmonic waves EVER.

This is a misinterpretation. A standing wave most certainly has kinetic energy. You are assuming that because the magnitude of the complex wave does not change then there is no kinetic energy. The momentum operator is used in the same way as classical mechanics to get KE = p^2/2m, which is non zero. The net momentum of such a wave is zero (assuming the boundary is in a rest frame), but the total kinetic energy is not.

There is a field along the fourth dimension, but you claimed that there is a field within our three-dimensional space around the electron's charge. There is no such field: All the electric energy within three-dimensional space is the mass of the electron.

So, now there is a field? It is just hidden in a fourth spatial dimension? After all that whining about how it is experimentally impossible to prove a solitary electron has a field in the ordinary spatial dimensions, you are seriously arguing that a solitary electron has a field in a spatial dimension no-one has ever detected? Since you are driven by experiment, dare I ask what you experimental evidence for the fourth space dimension is?

Quote: As for positronium, please cite your evidence. I don't deal with positronium a whole lot.

I am also not working with positronium but did work in a lab where positronium spectroscopy has been done. I am not at that lab anymore and I do not have the time to look up such refrences. But I can assure you that I am correct.

So then you have nothing. If you don't have time to dig up papers on something you claim to have already researched then don't ask other to explain the results that you don't have time to show. You are just wasting other peoples time. I hope you did not make any statements about positronium in your book without ever citing a reference. I shouldn't have to tell you how dishonest that would be.

Again you are devious here. I did not quote Feynman's opinion but his proof that this assumption leads to an infinite field-energy around the electron.

How do I know what proof you are talking about if you don't cite it? You did just quote his opinion, not how he arrived at it. Assuming you did not misrepresent his opinion.

Quote:
and hand wavy arguments about Schroedinger's equation, that isn't actually Schroedinger's equation at all but something you made up but won't show,

You should not throw wild accusations around if you cannot prove them. I will ignore it as caused by you impetous young age.

The solution for the magnetic moment can only be derived from Schroedinger's equation and it has nothing to do with an electron moving around a proton...

Schroedinger's equation is an approximation

Suffice to say that my guess is to replace mass m in the Schroedinger equation...

Did I quote the Scgroedinger equation or the wave equation for matter waves...

So yes, what I said was accurate. It is not Schroedinger's equation. And you still have not shown the full equation as I have pointed out above. I assume it's in your book. What was the title again? I searched amazon for the author to no avail.

Quote:
They like to talk instead of making calculations just like you do. See what Feynman said about that.

Again a serious, and libellous, accusation. I have done more calculations in my life that turned out to be correct than you will ever be able to do if you keep on following the fudgers.

It took five pages of arguing to get you to give a single equation. If you don't want the accusation then don't work so hard to earn it.

[kcdodd]

Fringe dwellers are an integral part of physics, in my opinion, it is only when they try to sell material to the lay-man that gets me going. It is a subtle kind of fraud charlatanism but it shouldn't stop fringe physics from being practised. Charlatans give fringe physics a bad name, if you have something fringey just put it out there and see what comes of it, don't try and rip people off with your crazy beliefs for gawd sakes.

I have had the same thought. He is really harmless though. There are worse things to believe. The thing is that there is nothing specific here to even go on. Of course I have not read his book, but I imagine it is more of the same.

[ladajo]

http://www.cathodixx.com/index.asp

[johanfprins]

I have not seen where you mention the title of your book.

It has been mentioned many times in this forum: Its title is "The Physics Delusion". I apologise, but I thought you were aware of this. In the cocky manner in which you throw your weight around, I would have expected that you would first have checked all the facts: However, since Nobel Prize winners like Josephson, Wilczek, 'tHoofd, etc, also do not do this I should not have expected that from you.

Since your arguments are becoming more and more incoherent, I will not even try to correct each one of them but rather suggest a new approach. Let us start off by deciding to agree with the minimum of facts and see where logic takes us: I suggest the following two facts which I am sure you will not dispute.

(1) that an electron can be modelled by a harmonic wave equation with complex amplitudes, like the Schroedinger equation, but not necessarily exactly by this equation (after all Dirac's wrong equation is not the same as Schroedinger's equation),
(2) That pair production proves that the total energy of a solitary electron is given by: E=(1/2)(hbar)(omega); which is also its mass energy mc^2. This is a fact that can be experimentally verified. Since it is a light wave that produced the electron, the electron is in essence also a light wave.

Thus when solving the appropriate wave equation for a solitary electron, the solution for its energy must be (1/2)(hbar)(omega). And do you know that there is only one wave-solution that gives this energy? It is the ground-state wave of a harmonic oscillator with a single degree of freedom.

Thus the stationary electron must experience a restoring force constant K within its inertial reference frame. What is interesting here is that the wave must be the same in all directions within three-dimensional space; but it only has a single degree of freedom. This is like a wave on a string which can vibrate in all directions perpendicular to the string even though it only has a single degree of freedom. Maybe that is the reason why "string theory" seems to give an answer; even though it is based on virtual claptrap.

Since the differential wave equation must give the mass-energy of a solitary electron as its solution, it is clear that that it cannot have this mass-energy as an input. The Schroedinger equation works so well for non-solitary electrons that the wave equation for a solitary electron is probably very near to that of the Schroedinger equation after the mass is eliminated. Therefore I removed the input mass by replacing it with (1/2)((hbar)(omega))/c^2, and then solved the equation for a force constant K. One then finds that the appropriate angular frequency of the electron is ((K*c^2)(2(hbar))^(-1/3). In other words the mass relates to a force constant, or as they say in QFT a "coupling parameter".

But in the present case it makes more physical sense since it does not violate Galileo's inertia which determines gravity; since there is no uncertainty in the position and momentum of the waves centre-of-mass. How the hell physicists could have believed for more than 80 years that they can unify quantum mechanics with gravity while clinging to the uncertainty interpretation for matter waves, is totally beyond my comprehension.

So is it a light wave,

Well it was born, or can be born, from a light wave during pair production! Or do you dispute this also?

or an electron trapped in a potential well in this fourth dimension?

I did not say that the potential well is in the fourth space dimension.

How does the fourth space dimension wave interacts with Schroedinger's equation?

All I said is that the force constant K can be modelled as if there is a positive charge situated a distance d away along a fourth space dimension. You then find that you can write that K=(e^2/(4*(pi)*(epsilon0))*(d)^(-3). This distance d can alternatively be interpreted as a radius of curvature of three-dimensional space.

An electric field in this 4th dimension, 5-D EM theory (ie 4 space and 1 time) just does not exist

Wow I really wish I was as clever as you to just know what is possible and what not. You should become an oracle!.

so if you expect anyone to follow this you had better give how that is done too.

I have just given you the logic above and ttis logic is already more than 5 years old. It is amazing that with your superior insight you do not know this.

Of course you reject accepted EM theory anyway

You see how dishonest you are? I have not said that EM theory is incorrect. I have only said that if you apply EM theory as if threre is an electric field-energy within three-dinmensional space around a solitary charge you are calculating a field that does not exist.

This is a misinterpretation. A standing wave most certainly has kinetic energy.

If the wave has complex amplitudes the kinetic energy of vibration at every point is not present within our three-dimensional space since the wave amplitude has two components which simultaneously move along two perpendicular axes which cannot be observed within three-dimensional space. In addition, no standing wave has ever had any momentum: Thus it cannot represent any kinetic energy related to momentum EVER. Thus to say that an electron-orbital around a nucleus has momentum which gives it kinetic energy is pure unadulterated poppycock.

You are assuming that because the magnitude of the complex wave does not change then there is no kinetic energy. The momentum operator is used in the same way as classical mechanics to get KE = p^2/2m, which is non zero. The net momentum of such a wave is zero (assuming the boundary is in a rest frame), but the total kinetic energy is not.

Can you not see how schizophrenic your argument is! First you say there is momentum which gives you kinetic energy and then you say that this momentum is zero! An electron wave can like any other wave ONLY have momentum when it is moving. De Broglie's wave length is only then valid. It is NOT valid for a stationary electron wave.

So, now there is a field? It is just hidden in a fourth spatial dimension?

I have only pointed out that the force constant K which must be there according to the formula for pair formation, can be modelled as if there is a positive charge situated a distance d away along a fourth dimension.

After all that whining about how it is experimentally impossible to prove a solitary electron has a field in the ordinary spatial dimensions

Where have I been whining. I just asked from you to accept that such a field cannot be measured and to accept that by setting it zero one gets rid of infinities and crackpot mathematics like renormalistion.

So then you have nothing. If you don't have time to dig up papers

YOU are definitely not so important that I will waste my time seaching for refrences which you can do for yourself by just lifting you lazy ass.

on something you claim to have already researched

See how dishonest you are? Where did I claim to have done research on positron spectroscopy?

How do I know what proof you are talking about if you don't cite it?

If you are too lazy to look it up ypourself, don't blame me. I can assure you that if positronium would have been different in this respect from hydrogen it would have been so important that it would have been cited in elementary textbooks.

Did I quote the Scgroedinger equation or the wave equation for matter waves...

I apologise: I did mix up the equations and used Schroedinger equation since it is fairly accurate when modelling an electron around a nucleus but not when modelling a free solitary electron. I should have been more clear on this point.

It took five pages of arguing to get you to give a single equation. If you don't want the accusation then don't work so hard to earn it.

I did not know you wanted these equations. I responded to your request to describe a non-existent electric-field in terms of equations.

[johanfprins]

- fields of a fourth spatial dimension
- virtual anti-charges due to an electron

So you rather believe in strings within 11 dimensions and virtual particles popping up from the vacuum? You must be the voodoo master. I will not demean myself to remark on your other comment. As I have pointed out above you enjoy it to swim in the gutter. Probably because you were born there and know no better.

[kcdodd]

Quote:
An electric field in this 4th dimension, 5-D EM theory (ie 4 space and 1 time) just does not exist
Wow I really wish I was as clever as you to just know what is possible and what not. You should become an oracle!.

I did not say it was impossible. I said the theory does not exist (at least a verified theory). The way I know it does not exist is that we do not have 4 space dimensions to test such a theory. It would have to be a 5-component potential theory, so I can imagine such a thing could be constructed, but the physical meaning seems dubious.

If the wave has complex amplitudes the kinetic energy of vibration at every point is not present within our three-dimensional space since the wave amplitude has two components which simultaneously move along two perpendicular axes which cannot be observed within three-dimensional space.

You know, like in circuits when the phasor of the voltage has as a real and imaginary part? You can still figure out what the voltage is. Or do circuits not have real voltages anymore? Why is it when you don't like something you just set it to zero? haha.

Quote:
You are assuming that because the magnitude of the complex wave does not change then there is no kinetic energy. The momentum operator is used in the same way as classical mechanics to get KE = p^2/2m, which is non zero. The net momentum of such a wave is zero (assuming the boundary is in a rest frame), but the total kinetic energy is not.

Can you not see how schizophrenic your argument is! First you say there is momentum which gives you kinetic energy and then you say that this momentum is zero! An electron wave can like any other wave ONLY have momentum when it is moving. De Broglie's wave length is only then valid. It is NOT valid for a stationary electron wave.

Again, if you even bothered to read what I said you would know that I did not say the momentum was zero everywhere, I said the net momentum was zero. You know, when you add up all the momentums of the different parts of the wave? We also call that an integral. All the momentums cancel out because some are positive and some are negative. But because the KE is the square of the momentum you actually get a non-zero number. I know, it's like magic. Seriously man. Seriously?

Where have I been whining. I just asked from you to accept that such a field cannot be measured and to accept that by setting it zero one gets rid of infinities and crackpot mathematics like renormalistion.

I know, you like setting things to zero when they cause a problem for you.

YOU are definitely not so important that I will waste my time seaching for refrences which you can do for yourself by just lifting you lazy ass.

You are the one who made an argument based on positronium. Do you react this way every time someone asks you to back up your statements?

See how dishonest you are? Where did I claim to have done research on positron spectroscopy?

You have used your "knowledge" of positronium to make several statements.

You said:

"If you are correct positronium must have a zero magnetic moment: Guess what is the experimental fact? "

"I note that you avoided my challenge about positronium: what a pity"

"Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, if the Bohr atom is possible and your derivation is correct positronium cannot have a magnetic moment"

"For example, how your derivation of the magnetic moment for a Bohr atom explains that the magnetic moment of positronium is not zero. "

"I am also not working with positronium but did work in a lab where positronium spectroscopy has been done."

When I ask you to provide a reference for the thing you base your arguments on, you get angry and call me a lazy ass. To say you worked at a lab that did positronium spectroscopy, but now admitting that you have not done any actual research related to it, is a misrepresentation of your knowledge and a failed attempt at an argument from authority. Why should I believe anything you say?


By the way, "The Physics Delusion" is actually a pretty good name for your book. Good luck with that too.

[Giorgio]

Msimon, in another thread, just posted the news of a new published paper that is quite interesting:
"The Relativity of Simultaneity: An Analysis Based on the Properties of Electromagnetic Waves"


Here is the full 11 pages article:
http://www.aphysrev.org/index.php/aphys ... ad/369/175