QED meets GR

[johanfprins]

Every electron and every proton acts as an independent source due to the principle of superposition.

Prove to me by experiment, even if it is only a thought experiment, that there must be a electric field-energy around a solitary stationary charge.

You cannot simultaneously claim that EM is correct

It is correct if one does not assume that an electric-field energy exists around a solitary stationary electric-charge: AS even Feynman pointed out it is at this point that EM "falls flat on its face".

If you are claiming different then what you are talking about does not appear in any book on classical EM I have read. A solitary electron can most certainly constitute a current.

Yes it has been wrongly accepted that this is so without any incontrovertible experimental proof that it can be so. This has led to the great fudging in physics; for example, renormalization, Aharanov-Bohm effect, Asymptotic freedom, spontaneous symmetry breaking etc. AS I have asked you above, prove to me by a thought experiment that there must be an electric field energy around a solitary stationary charge; which can in turn generate a magnetic field when the electron moves.

and supports your claims, and is even explained in intro books,

So you believe that once it is in an intro book it is holy and sacrosant? You sound like a Bible Puncher to me: Not a physicist

while also claiming that EM theory got it all wrong. So, which is it?

You see how you want to put words in my mouth? Where have I ever claimed EM got it all wrong?

Either way, if you want others to believe you, then you need to show your work.

I have and I have even published it in a book since the mainstream journals are acting worse than the Spanish inquisition. So I have shown my work: It is YOU who do not want to read it. Read the first section on my website and then try and argue real physics with me.


BTW for the next two week I will have limited access to the internet, but will try and keep up with the discussions.

[icarus]

The first principle of Einstein's special relativity is that there is not a preferred stationary reference frame. Thus for the Bohr atom you cannot say that it is actually the electron which is circling the proton or that it is the proton circling the electron. .... (massive amount of blather snipped) .....
M(proton)+M(electron)=IA-IA=0. Happy now?

No. Why would you chose either the proton or electron rest frames for a magnetic moment calc.? Does either of those frames have any relevance whatsoever to the laboratory/observer frame that will be experimentally verifying/dispatching your notion? In fact, relative to an external observer (needed to measure the presence/absence of the hypothesised mag. moment) both frames would be rotating, thus non-inertial and violate the SR principle, that you seem to want to include in this simple gedanken case and that does nothing but confuse .... unless you have a deeper insight.

Another point, magnetic moments, and angular momentum or any moment calcs are not typically frame invariant ... you have to choose wisely to get sensible/useful results.

And if you must know, I keep digging with you here because I'm kind of fascinated by the solitary charge having no electric field hypothesis though (i.e. put away the tinfoil beanie) ... it is one I've toyed with in the past for other reasons, but how would it ever be proven or not? And is it even needed as a concept if the only tools we use to describe EM are the interactions between charges .... does it change any calculable results what the solitary state is?

[BenTC]

going to the physics text book by Serway page 1179.

Could you narrow that down? It would help if everyone was looking at the same thing.

This book only goes to page 957 (see the "Look Inside" > Table Of Contents).
College Physics by Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn, and Chris Vuille (Hardcover - Feb 19, 2008)

This book only has review problems on page 1179.
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern, Chapters 1-46 Hardcover Eighth Edition, Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett

Here are a few freely available online physics texts in case the material you reference can be found in them...

• Physics - Light and Matter
• Mountain Motion
• A Radically Modern Approach to Introductory Physics Volume 1 & Volume 2
• Calculus Based Physics Volume 1 & Volume 2

[Nik]

"solitary charge having no electric field"

If so, why do electrons repel each other or be controlled by deflection plates in eg TV ??

[johanfprins]

Could you narrow that down? It would help if everyone was looking at the same thing.

Fourth Edition: Saunders College Publishing ISBN 0-03-015654-8

1982 edition

Here are a few freely available online physics texts in case the material you reference can be found in them...

I will follow these up in two weeks time when I I am back on broadband. At the moment my internet connection is expensive.

[johanfprins]

No. Why would you chose either the proton or electron rest frames for a magnetic moment calc.? Does either of those frames have any relevance whatsoever to the laboratory/observer frame that will be experimentally verifying/dispatching your notion?

According to Einstein's Special Relativity they are all equivalent; also to the center-of-mass reference frame (I note that you avoided my challenge about positronium: what a pity). All that is required is that what you observe in one inertial reference frame can be transformed into the other refrence frame by means of the Lorentz transformation: You cannot transform a magnetic moment so that it flips when going from one inertial reference frame to another. I just used this argument to prove how futile and stupid the argument is that you must choose a reference frame in which the center-of-mass is stationary.
In fact there is no reason why you cannot choose the origin of your inertial refreence frame to be at the charge-centre of the two charges. In terms of Dodds wrong calculation this will give ZERO magnetic moment.

In fact, relative to an external observer (needed to measure the presence/absence of the hypothesised mag. moment) both frames would be rotating,

Really!!! If you choose one of these reference frames as the stationary, inertial refrence frame, as allowed by Einstein's first postulate, it is only the other refrence frame that is rotating: Not both!

both are thus non-inertial and violate the SR principle, that you seem to want to include in this simple gedanken case and that does nothing but confuse .... unless you have a deeper insight.

Both cannot be non-inertial unless you have a unique stationary reference frame which is NOT possible. You can measure movement along any inertial reference frame and this reference frame need not be unique.

Another point, magnetic moments, and angular momentum or any moment calcs are not typically frame invariant ... you have to choose wisely to get sensible/useful results.

This remark can lead to a long drawn out discussion. Suffice to say that I am of the opinion that you should have used "fudging" instead of 'wise choice".

And if you must know, I keep digging with you here because I'm kind of fascinated by the solitary charge having no electric field hypothesis though (i.e. put away the tinfoil beanie) ... it is one I've toyed with in the past for other reasons, but how would it ever be proven or not?

Eureka, we are finally touching brains!! I am excited and I am not writing this to be sarcastic. The fact is that there are two possibilities (either there is a field or there is not a field) which cannot be proved either way by experiment. This is so since to determine whether there is an electric-field energy around a solitary charge you must use a test charge; and then you do not have a solitary charge anymore. In fact the electric-field lines for two cahrges do NOT correspond to the spherically symmetric field-lines around a solitary charge as is wrongly illustrated in elementary textbooks.
So a wise physicist would look for circumstantial evidence to decide which of bthe two possibilities is more self-consistent than the other.
I would reason that the assumption which leads to infinities in calculations must be the wrong one! And the assumption which consistently lead to infinities is (guess what) that there actually is an electric-field energy around a solitary charge. In fact Coulomb's law has only been proved BETWEEN charges not around a solitary charge.

And is it even needed as a concept if the only tools we use to describe EM are the interactions between charges .... does it change any calculable results what the solitary state is?

Yes it is needed since such a field is used to calculate that there is a magnetic field around a single moving charge and thus leads to the wrong conclusion that Bohr's atomic model has a magnetic moment.
Another case which cannot be proved by experiments is whether there are free charge-carriers withi a metal when there is no electric-field within the metal. To measure free charge carriers you must apply an electric-field so you can never know whther the charge carrirers are generated by the applied electric field or not. In my book I show that the assumtion that there are no free charge carriers when there is no electric field (ignoring tempertaure effects if course) is afr more self-consistent than to assume that there are free charge carriers even when there is not an electric field.

[kcdodd]

So you believe that once it is in an intro book it is holy and sacrosant? You sound like a Bible Puncher to me: Not a physicist

You are the one who referenced "intro books", not me. I asked you to show the equations you are using, and you said "It is already done in high school text books."

Prove to me by experiment, even if it is only a thought experiment, that there must be a electric field-energy around a solitary stationary charge.

It is correct if one does not assume that an electric-field energy exists around a solitary stationary electric-charge: AS even Feynman pointed out it is at this point that EM "falls flat on its face".

Surly you do not reject maxwell's equations if you accept at least some EM theory. The electric field is clearly sourced by electric charge through div(E) = rho/epsilon. Mathematically there must be a field around a charged particle. Now, through manipulating maxwell's equations you can arrive at the continuity equation. drho/dt + div(J) = 0. Now if that single charged particle is moved, then there must also be a current to maintain continuity.

Now through maxwell's equations once more and finding the wave equation you see that the waves are sourced by charge and current (just found above). Finding also poynting's theorem from maxwells equations one can find the energy radiated away by those waves.

Now to the experiment to prove this. Create a localized magnetic field which is meant to bend the path of a moving charged particle. Shoot single electrons through perpendicular to the field. Their bent path can be measured. Radiation can also be measured from the accelerating single electron and should match a calculation from above.

Both cannot be non-inertial unless you have a unique stationary reference frame which is NOT possible. You can measure movement along any inertial reference frame and this reference frame need not be unique.

What icarus is saying is that if you intent to "follow" the electron, or the proton, around their orbit, then you are not observing from an inertial reference frame. The only inertial reference frames are those in which the center of mass moves with constant velocity. Both of your proposed frames have the center of mass orbiting the observer. This is as if you were claiming the earth were an inertial reference frame as it orbits the sun, when it is clearly not. Unless now you are saying Newton got it wrong too.

[KitemanSA]

Prove to me by experiment, even if it is only a thought experiment, that there must be a electric field-energy around a solitary stationary charge.

It is correct if one does not assume that an electric-field energy exists around a solitary stationary electric-charge: AS even Feynman pointed out it is at this point that EM "falls flat on its face".

Surly you do not reject maxwell's equations if you accept at least some EM theory. The electric field is clearly sourced by electric charge through div(E) = rho/epsilon. Mathematically there must be a field around a charged particle. Now, through manipulating maxwell's equations you can arrive at the continuity equation. drho/dt + div(J) = 0. Now if that single charged particle is moved, then there must also be a current to maintain continuity.

To my admittedly tin-like ears, you two sound like you are arguing "there is too a field", "no there isn't any energy", "there is too a field", "no there isn't any energy". Are you communicating? Are you talking about the same thing?

[icarus]

Nik said:

If so, why do electrons repel each other or be controlled by deflection plates in eg TV ??

I think the hypothesis is that the electric field around a charged particle is only established once it comes into interaction with another charge, or charges .... (at least that's what the model I built was pointing towards.)

So imagine a single electron far removed from any externally applied EM fields has no E (or M) field associated with it. However, when that electron comes within an influential range of another particle or wave capable of producing an E (or M) field, (negative or positive charge, static or in motion) then the field of interaction as described by Maxwell becomes established.

Although, I don't see any experimental way to know if this true or not. Maybe there is some small temporary discrepancy with Maxwell's eqn.'s that can be measured as the field is in the process of getting established.

In any case, the Bohr atom model has a electron and a proton so it is not a case of a solitary charge. It has the field of a pair of charges, one positive, one negative orbiting an inertial center of mass.

[PNeilson10]

There is only Coulomb - Attraction or Repulsion between 2 charges in Electrostatics or Dynamics.

All else is math - not reality.

Therefore, all electo-statics and dynamics must be cast in terms that are dependent on 2 particles.

All math otherwise is simply wrong!

[kcdodd]

To my admittedly tin-like ears, you two sound like you are arguing "there is too a field", "no there isn't any energy", "there is too a field", "no there isn't any energy". Are you communicating? Are you talking about the same thing?

If there is a field then there is field energy. To say there is no field energy is also to say there is no field. It is well established that the field must have both energy and momentum to be self consistent. If you ignore the field contributions then you lose conservation of energy and momentum.

[johanfprins]

"solitary charge having no electric field"

If so, why do electrons repel each other or be controlled by deflection plates in eg TV ??

Because electrons repelling each other are not solitary and the deflection plates are charged by using electrons: Thus an electron passing by is not solitary.

[kcdodd]

So you are saying there is no experimental difference between a solitary electron having a field and one not having a field, since fields can only be felt by other charged particles? By the same token, there is no experemental way to say that a solitary electron even exists. Or that just two electrons exist and make a field if there is not a third to measure them and their field. Now lets debate whether a tree makes a noise in a forrest if there's noone around to hear it. What was the point of you bringing that up to begin with if the theoretical predition is exactly the same?

[kcdodd]

Actually, I do want to make a point about things existing while not being observed. There is a little problem of hysteresis. Imagine if you could turn an observing system on and off. Ie, you look at a particle and note it's position and velocity. Then you stop looking at it. Now, if you start looking at it again the position and velocity you see now will be correlated to the one you saw earlier. Classically it is completely determined. In QM there is relaxation of the probability function but same kind of idea applies: correlation of states.

Logically there must be something there in between that somehow "remembers" what was being observed earlier. Otherwise the two observations would be completely uncorrelated. For that matter, there is no reason to expect to even see the particle at all the second time if there is no memory.

Now on to fields. One can make the same argument about them. There are some who claim that sources are real and fields are not, because you can describe the forces on all sources by considering only the other sources at retarded times. Therefore, only the hysterisis of the particles is needed. However, like I mentioned earlier, one cannot only look at the particles to get the total energy/momentum of the system.

Now, the fields can be completely determined by sources only, but to maintain hysterisis of the fields this way there would have to be memory of not only the current configuration of sources, but the entire past of the sources as well. This is contrary to earlier when one only needed the configuration at one time. To "observe" then entire state of the field one would have to "observe" all of history, even before they started observing. Alternatively, everything can be recovered from memory of just the current field configuration. I'll leave it up to you to decide which view is more elegant.

[johanfprins]

Surly you do not reject maxwell's equations if you accept at least some EM theory. The electric field is clearly sourced by electric charge through div(E) = rho/epsilon.

"rho" means you have a charge-distribution NOT a solitary electron-charge.

Mathematically there must be a field around a charged particle...

We are arguing physics here: mathematics is only a tool and it can be used incorrectly: And when it is, it means "garbage in - garbage out". What seems mathematically consistent is not necessarily physics. No matter what Paiul Dirac has said when he led us into the quagmire of non-physics.

I can solve any differential equation to give a myriad of solutions which are mathematically consistent but cannot model real physics. This is why physics is not mathematics; no matter how beautiful and self-consistent the mathematics seems to be. The physicist's task is to find the correct boundary conditions which causes mathematics to describe actual reality: and then prove that what his model describes caan be experimentally proved.

However, modern theoretical physicists avoid at all costs to find the correct boundary conditions and to worry about experimental verification; probably because it requires them to thnik real physics. The only proof in the end is still to measure experimentally that what you claim is really there. And as I have pointed out it is impossible to measure whether there is an actual field energy around a solitary charge. Thus you must then assume that there might be a field-energy but it is equally likely that there might not be. So both possibilities must be objectively evaluated and compared.

I can assure you that in such a situation the best indication that you have assumed the wrong physics is when you obtain infinities in your equations. This happens consistently when you assume that there is an electric energy-field around a solitary charge. But the modern trend is not to try and determine the garabage at the input but to try and fudge the garbage found at the output to satisfy what the mainstream wants to believe. Like a witchdoctor re-arranging the entrails of a slaughtered goat.

If you assume that there is not an electric energy-field around a solitary charge, the infinities fall away and the origin of the mass of the electron becomes clear and simple.

Now, through manipulating maxwell's equations you can arrive at the continuity equation. drho/dt + div(J) = 0. Now if that single charged particle is moved, then there must also be a current to maintain continuity.

What this equation tells you is that if at a point within a differentiable charge distribuion the charge density increases or decreases, a current density will flow "out off" or into that point. You can with a bit of hand-waving argue that it describes the movement as a single charge as a current, although I doubt whther this can be correct. But it still does not tell you that such a current can generate a magnetic field around it. The latter is the argument about which we are rally arguing.

Now through maxwell's equations once more and finding the wave equation you see that the waves are sourced by charge and current (just found above). Finding also poynting's theorem from maxwells equations one can find the energy radiated away by those waves.

The waves are sourced by charges moving RELATIVE to each other NEVER by a solitary charge. It is formed by fields BETWEEN charges.

Now to the experiment to prove this. Create a localized magnetic field which is meant to bend the path of a moving charged particle.

Do you ask your fairy godmother to create the localised magnetic field or do you use charges moving relative to each other?

Shoot single electrons through perpendicular to the field.

I am not talking about single electrons but SOLITARY electrons. A single electron moving through a magnetic field is NOT SOLITARY since the magnetic field is created by the presence of other charges moving relative to each other.

Their bent path can be measured. Radiation can also be measured from the accelerating single electron and should match a calculation from above.

This still does not prove that there is an electric field energy around a solitary charge. It only proves that there are field energies between more than just a solitary charge.

What icarus is saying is that if you intent to "follow" the electron, or the proton, around their orbit, then you are not observing from an inertial reference frame. The only inertial reference frames are those in which the center of mass moves with constant velocity. Both of your proposed frames have the center of mass orbiting the observer. This is as if you were claiming the earth were an inertial reference frame as it orbits the sun, when it is clearly not. Unless now you are saying Newton got it wrong too

This is an interesting argument which might have some merit and is one I have been struggling with for a long time since we know that an object with mass following a circular path also has inertia. And in terms of Einstein's general theory of relativity a curved path does not necessarily violate Newton's first law.
But even if you are correct in this case, it still does not support your argument that the movement of a single electron causes a magnetic field around its path. This is what I dispute.
But let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct about this, then your derivation of the net magnetic moment by subtracting the magnetic moment of the electron around the centre of mass from the magnetic moment of the proton around the c entre of mass is not supported by experimental fact since the magnetic moment which have been used for a Bohr atom which seemed to fit the experimental data is solely that of the electron alone circling a stationary proton. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, if the Bohr atom is possible and your derivation is correct positronium cannot have a magnetic moment; while it does have one.