QED meets GR

[johanfprins]

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.

Not totally correct. If you assume that a magnetic field can form around the path of a solitary charge, you are assuming the presence of an electric-field energy around a stationary solitary charge. Although there is a field between the electron and the proton in the Bohr atom, the two charges are not moving tangentially relative to each other as is required for a magnetic field to form.

But let us just stick the experimentally unverified assumptions that there is an electric energy-field around a stationary solitary electron. The fact is that ALL the electric-energy in three-dimensional space is equal to the mass of the solitary electron. There is none left to manifest around a solitary electron.

[johanfprins]

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!

Bravo: You have grabbed the nettle. What is mathematically possible is not physics until it is proved to be so by impeccable experiments.

In addition it is even possible to interpret experimental results to obtain the wrong results predicted by your theory, This has happened when the charges on superconducting charge-carriers were deduced from the flux quantum (as well as Josephson radiation) to be doubly charged; while the correct model mandates tat they are SINGLY charged. But if you are a mainstream physicist who is hell-bent on believing that superconducting charge carriers MUST be bosons, then you just close your eyes to any other possibility as being "heretic". You thus deliberately misinterpret your experimental results to get doubly-charged entities which do not exist.

[johanfprins]

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?

I have NOT said thre is NO difference: Please do not put words in my mouth. I stated the principle of experimental philosphy which must be accepted by a physicist unless he is a charlatan: Namely. that if there are two mutually exclusve possibilities which cannot be decided by experiment, one should accept that both are possible and determine which one leads to nonsensical results. For a solitary electron it is well known that the assumption that there is such a field leads to nonsense like infinities in the equations derived from this result.

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.

Since there is an action at a distance there must be a force in space between them. You are of course correct to conclude that the field lines we assume are around and between two charges might be different than when assuming that they can be plotted by a third charge.

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?

The theoretical prediction is NOT the same: In the one case you obtain exploding integrals in the other you do NOT. The argument of a tree falling is obviously irrelevant.

[johanfprins]

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.

This is gobbledegook based on insane speculation. Let us stay to the simple question of whether you can prove experimentally whether there is an electric-field energy around a solitary charge. If you cannot, then it is a stupid person who asumes one of the possibilities is correct because mathematically it seems more logical. This attitude lies at the root of the problem with modern theoretical physics. And this is why QFT is just virtual poppycock.

[johanfprins]

To upset the mainstream cranks in charge of physics a bit more:

Note that the solution for Schroedinger's equation for a "free" electron, obtained by setting V=0, is wtitten as exp(ikr-iwt) is not a physically valid solution since no boundary conditions are specified. The same for Dirac's equation when solved for "free" electron.

Dirac's equation is even worse since it mandates that his differential equation (derived for a solitary electron) must have a lowest energy state of minus infinity for a "free" electron. Dirac being a mathematician with NO insight into physics (just like Heisenberg: No wonder Willy Wien did not want to give him his doctorate) then grabbed out of the air an infinite number of electrons to define the Dirac sea. How come? His equation is solved for a single solitary electron. Thus "garbage in and garbage out" and instead of looking for the problem at the input he fudged the output. It is hilarious that he won the Nobel Prize for "predicting the positron": What utter nonsense!!

[icarus]

Actually, Dirac was firstly an electrical engineer.

It is more likely he was just putting together the best effort using the available math of the time to produce a result that worked with the experimental observations.

Dissing dead scientists does what exactly (besides pump your ego), where's your work on atomic physics? ... oh, right, I'd have to buy the book.

I don't think Dirac was in it for the book sales but who knows.

[kcdodd]

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

Please give the equation for what you are saying here. How do I convert electrons to a charge distribution, if not by adding the charges of electrons individually?

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

Please give the equation for what you are saying here. How do I write out sources based on relative charges, and not on individual charges?

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.

You still need to provide the math. Then we will see if what you are saying is physics. As it is, what you have isn't even math.

[kcdodd]

This is gobbledegook based on insane speculation. Let us stay to the simple question of whether you can prove experimentally whether there is an electric-field energy around a solitary charge. If you cannot, then it is a stupid person who asumes one of the possibilities is correct because mathematically it seems more logical.

Everything I said can be derived from maxwell's equations. If you are claiming that either maxwell's equations are wronge, or there is an additional constraint, then you must provide what that is in a form that can be compared mathematically. Please quit with the pseudo-skepticism. maxwell's equations has been experimentally verified for 100 years and you have provided nothing in the way of experimental evidence to support your claims.

[johanfprins]

Actually, Dirac was firstly an electrical engineer.

It is more likely he was just putting together the best effort using the available math of the time to produce a result that worked with the experimental observations.

Dissing dead scientists does what exactly (besides pump your ego), where's your work on atomic physics? ... oh, right, I'd have to buy the book.

I don't think Dirac was in it for the book sales but who knows.

He might have been trained as an electrical engineer, but I am glad he did not follow that line because an egineer has to be practical and all engineers know that if you devise a differential equation and you get that the minimum energy answer is minus infinity, then the equation that you dervised is wrong and you cannot improve the result by fudging the solution.

Saying that I am "dissing" dead scientists is typically what I have learned to expect from you. It is beneath contempt, but I have seen that you like to swim in the gutter. So once a scientist is dead you must not point out that he made a mistake? Really you need a brain transplant: But on the other hand you already have a brand new one which has never been used!

[johanfprins]

Everything I said can be derived from maxwell's equations.

And I can derive many solutions from Maxwell's equations which are not physics. Maxwell's equations are differential equations and will give you an answer even when you solve them by assuming physically impossible boundary conditions

If you are claiming that either maxwell's equations are wrong,

It seems that it is impossible for you to argue without having your foot in your mouth or trying to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that Maxwell's equations are wrong but that the solutions you get when applying these equations to situations for which you assume that there is an electric field-energy around a solitary charge are wrong. In fact Maxwells equatiuons are so correct that they warn you that when doing such a physically wrong calculation you are calculating nonsense. Therefore you get integrals that explode into infinities which then have to be "renormalised" away; just as Dirac "renormalised" his negative infinity result by suddenly inventing an infinite number of electrons, even though his differential equation is only valid for a single electron.

or there is an additional constraint, then you must provide what that is in a form that can be compared mathematically.

. Do you understand what physics is all about? Clearly not! It is called experimental philosophy; and when you use an input that cannot be experimentally verified and obtain infinity; but still claim the input is correct, then you are not doing physics! In fact you are then a voodoo artist.

Please quit with the pseudo-skepticism. maxwell's equations has been experimentally verified for 100 years and you have provided nothing in the way of experimental evidence to support your claims.

What pseudo skepticism. The fact is that it has NOT been verified as correct when you use these equations to calculate a electric field around a solitary electron. In fact Feynman was the one who claimed that because of this result ALL Maxwell's equations fall flat on their faces. It thus does not seem that Feynman agrees with you that "maxwell's equations has been experimentally verified.

But I agree with you that Maxwell's eauations are correct PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT INCORRECTLY APPLIED. When using them to calculate an electric energy-field around an electron you apply them to a condition that is not physically possible and these equations even have the courtesy to point this out by exploding your integrals.

In the case of the Dirac equation the situation is even worse: In this case the equation is also nonsense.

[icarus]

Prins:

Dirac being a mathematician with NO insight into physics

and in which south african alternate universe is this not considered 'dissing'?

Pointing out mistakes is one thing, albeit limited by the paucity of equations/derivations on your part ... but you are doing nothing of the sort, you are delusional if you think your are merely 'pointing out mistakes'.

Just tone it down a few notches and see if you can overcome that hyper-aggressive personality disorder long enough to spit out whatever truth it is that you think you are harbouring which is beyond us mere mortals.

[kcdodd]

johanfprins, you still manage to avoid a every direct question I have posed to you. I have asked you multiple times to provide what you consider to be the proper equations. Continuing to make hand wavy statements and saying that I'm not a physicist because I won't listen to you isn't going to convince me of anything.

[johanfprins]

johanfprins, you still manage to avoid a every direct question I have posed to you. I have asked you multiple times to provide what you consider to be the proper equations. Continuing to make hand wavy statements and saying that I'm not a physicist because I won't listen to you isn't going to convince me of anything.

You are the one who avoids direct questions: For example, how your derivation of the magnetic moment for a Bohr atom explains that the magnetic moment of positronium is not zero.

Now I am asking you with tears in my navy blue eyes how I can I write down equations for something that does NOT exist. 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. In fact all the elecrons bound to a nucleus has no kinetic energy whatsoever since the mass energy of such an electron is less than its rest mass energy, and therefore it also has no momentum which can be associated with an electric current. This is the case for all time-independent Schroedinger waves.

The only time when an electron can circle a nucleus is when its total energy is larger than its rest mass energy. In this case the orbit is not stable since the electron accelerates and must thus radiate EM radiation; as determined by Maxwell's equations. Therefore it can still not define a magnetic moment caused by the movement of the electron since the electron cannot form a constant current.

Furthermore I have asked you time and again to tell me how you can prove experimentally that there is an electric field around the solitary charge. You avoided this question by trying to argue that Maxwell's equations demand it to be so. This is of course absolute nonsense since these differential equations are only valid when there is enough charge around so that one can approximate these charges as a continuous charge-field. Therefore the use of "rho" instead of q=e.

[kcdodd]

Now I am asking you with tears in my navy blue eyes how I can I write down equations for something that does NOT exist. 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. In fact all the elecrons bound to a nucleus has no kinetic energy whatsoever since the mass energy of such an electron is less than its rest mass energy, and therefore it also has no momentum which can be associated with an electric current. This is the case for all time-independent Schroedinger waves.

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

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. 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.

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 was meant to show that the motion of the proton did not matter. A quantum treatment would give a similar result (ie the proton contributes very little to the moment). 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.

Furthermore I have asked you time and again to tell me how you can prove experimentally that there is an electric field around the solitary charge. You avoided this question by trying to argue that Maxwell's equations demand it to be so. This is of course absolute nonsense since these differential equations are only valid when there is enough charge around so that one can approximate these charges as a continuous charge-field. Therefore the use of "rho" instead of q=e.

I have given ways to test these predictions but you reject them because "they are not single particles", as if that will somehow magically change the outcome of the experiment. You give no reason and no equation to show how it would be any different. I ask for equations. You say you cannot provide them because they don't exist. Hah! What a load of horse shit.

[krenshala]

... I have given ways to test these predictions but you reject them because "they are not single particles", as if that will somehow magically change the outcome of the experiment. You give no reason and no equation to show how it would be any different. I ask for equations. You say you cannot provide them because they don't exist. Hah! What a load of horse shit.

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?

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.

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).

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