QED meets GR

[johanfprins]

I did not say it was impossible. I said the theory does not exist (at least a verified theory).

So? I did not say it has been verified but only that this seems possible.

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.

This is totally different from a Schroedinger wave which is NOT DRIVEN by a source energy which can be equated to a voltage: haha.

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.

And I have stated clearly that it is exactly at this point where quantum mechanics has gone wrong. ALL harmonic waves "live" simultaneously in position and k-space but this does NOT mean that a stationary wave has momentum. If you want to put an (hbar) in front of k and claim that it is now momentum, even though the electron-wave and thus the electron is stationary you are violating de Broglie's postulate which is ONLY valid when an electron, and thus its "associated wave" is moving. Clearly when you slow down an electron, its de Broglie wavelength becomes longer and longer and must be infinity when the electron is stationary.

The net momentum of such a wave is zero (assuming the boundary is in a rest frame), but the total kinetic energy is not.

Although this is the BS they teach one in text books it is obviously absurd.

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?

Momentums of what?

We also call that an integral.

You REALLY are smart hey! Impressive.

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?

I have pointed out above that the energy of a solitary electron within its inertial reference frame must be its rest mass; or else pair formation will not be possible. I see that you avoid this fact. What this mandates is that an electron trapped around a nucleus within the same inertial refrence frame must have less energy than its rest mass. Such an electron cannot have kinetic energy: So please stop arguing BS.

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

No it is just the other way around: You like to see things as being there when they are NOT there. An electric-field is a conservative field and a conservative field must have BOTH sources and sinks to exist. Thus to model an electric-fierld as if it can be generated by a solitary source, as is done in QFT, is unadulterated nonsense.

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?

It will be esay for you in the USA to phone a lab where they are doing positron spectroscopy and to ask an expert whether the emission lines split when you apply a magnetic field. Furthermore I could also have argued the point using deuteroum or tritium. But this point is irrelevant since a soliter charge moving through space does NOT generate a static magnetic field around it.

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

So? I am not allowed to state an experimental fact unless I did the experiment? You are really splitting hairs here

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?

You see what I mean. Stop being childish!

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

Thank you. So far the comments I have received from people who read the book have all been positive: Some even embarrassing flattering!

[johanfprins]

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

I am gobsmacked! I live in Africa and am not aware of an "African Physical Review": However it does not surprize me that other continents are trying to bring sanity back to science; since as I show in my book the "Physical Review" and "Physical Review Letters" of the APS is worth less then a classroom publication at primary school.

Therefore it really pains me to point out that this publication is wrong; since the non-simultanaeity concluded by the observer on the platform does not depend on his/her position relative to the front and back lamps on the train. Even when the observer is at the position of the front lamp when the two lamps switch on he/she will still conclude that the back lamp switched on first. In other words, according to an outside observer, the time changes with position from past to future along the length of the train. The mistake made is to conclude that time is REALLY different on the train: IT IS NOT! It only seems to be so as far as the outside observer is concerned. Just as an outside observer will see that a ball thrown up straight into the air on the train follows a parabolic path. Although this path is real to the outside observer, this is NOT the path on the train. And although the time change along the train is real to the outside observer this is not so on the train.

[TallDave]

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.

Hmm.

[kcdodd]

As for Schroedinger's equation, it is your prerogative to believe what you want to about it.

Since you have refused to cite your sources, I have taken the liberty of reading several papers on Positronium spectroscopy, and have not come across a Zeeman effect due to orbital magnetic moment. Only splitting that is due to spin magnetic moment interaction. Also, in Quantum Electrodynamics by Berestetskii et al. they specifically derive zero orbital magnetic moment for positronium from a theoretica standpoint. Of course you would reject that derivation since it is based on quantum theory. However, since that does not seem to be contradicted by the experimental evidence I have read, and unless you wish to "vindicate" yourself, I am satisfied that your argument about positronium was baseless to begin with. What a shocker.

kcdodd wrote:
I did not say it was impossible. I said the theory does not exist (at least a verified theory).
So? I did not say it has been verified but only that this seems possible.

Please cite one of these "possible" 4+1 dimension EM theories. If you have the time.

An electric-field is a conservative field and a conservative field must have BOTH sources and sinks to exist. Thus to model an electric-fierld as if it can be generated by a solitary source, as is done in QFT, is unadulterated nonsense.

A conservative field is usually defined as a curl free field which can be given by the gradient of a scalar function. That definition does not depend on "sinks" and "sources", and is completely consistent with a single charge source. Also, looking at Maxwells equation for a second you may notice the curl(E) = -dB/dt, so E is not even necessarily a conservative field. So you must clarify what you mean.

[johanfprins]

Since you have refused to cite your sources, I have taken the liberty of reading several papers on Positronium spectroscopy, and have not come across a Zeeman effect due to orbital magnetic moment.

I expect that the spin-spin splt will in this case be larger than an orbital magnetic moment. Although I know that I am correct, it does not change my argument. It probably would have been better to use deuterium and tritium which give the same Zeeman splitting that hydrogen gives.

Also, in Quantum Electrodynamics by Berestetskii et al. they specifically derive zero orbital magnetic moment for positronium from a theoretical standpoint.

This is also true for the ground-state orbital of hydrogen.

Of course you would reject that derivation since it is based on quantum theory.

I have never rejected quantum theory per se; only the Copernhagen interpretation and all subsequent derivations which require probability amplitudes and Bohr's principle of complementarity. Schroedinger's equation (which BTW is already commensurate with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is an excellent approximation for a bound electron, but gives nonsense for a free electrons since it uses the mass of an electron as input where-as the mass of the electron must be the output.

However, since that does not seem to be contradicted by the experimental evidence I have read, and unless you wish to "vindicate" yourself, I am satisfied that your argument about positronium was baseless to begin with. What a shocker.

If you want to believe this, feel free to do so. But you are dead wrong.

kcdodd wrote:
I did not say it was impossible. I said the theory does not exist (at least a verified theory).
So? I did not say it has been verified but only that this seems possible.

Please cite one of these "possible" 4+1 dimension EM theories. If you have the time.

To start off with, try the famous paper by Theodor Kaluza in which he derived Maxwell's equations from Einstein's general relativity theory after assuming 4 space dimensions and one time dimension.

A conservative field is usually defined as a curl free field which can be given by the gradient of a scalar function. That definition does not depend on "sinks" and "sources", and is completely consistent with a singlke charge source

Wow!!! If the field-lines cannot form closed loops as in the case of a curl-field, they must originate at sources and end at sinks. Where do you think the field lines from a single source-charge go to? In all directions to infinity? You are a funny man you know.

Also, looking at Maxwells equation for a second you may notice the curl(E) = -dB/dt, so E is not even necessarily a conservative field. So you must clarify what you mean.

I just cannot follow your logic here! Are you arguing that since a circular electric field can be formed by a changing magnetic field a field generated by charges can also be circular? My, my I am really learning novel physics from you!

[kcdodd]

If you want to believe this, feel free to do so. But you are dead wrong.

You give me no reason to suspect so. That which I have found contradict you. You give no experimental evidence and no theoretical evidence. You have nothing to offer in this discussion.

To start off with, try the famous paper by Theodor Kaluza in which he derived Maxwell's equations from Einstein's general relativity theory after assuming 4 space dimensions and one time dimension.

Kaluza-Klein theory takes pure geometry in 4+1 dimensions to derive maxwells equations, which is a 3+1 EM theory, not a 4+1 em theory. You claimed the fourth dimension had an EM field, which is not purely geometrical. I take it that since this is the best candidate you could present that you don't actually have anything to offer.

Wow!!! If the field-lines cannot form closed loops as in the case of a curl-field, they must originate at sources and end at sinks. Where do you think the field lines from a single source-charge go to? In all directions to infinity? You are a funny man you know.

Yes. I can write V = 1/r, and F = -grad(V) is a conservative field by definition with field lines going toward infinity.

I just cannot follow your logic here! Are you arguing that since a circular electric field can be formed by a changing magnetic field a field generated by charges can also be circular? My, my I am really learning novel physics from you!

No, I am arguing that since the curl(E) can be non-zero, that your premise that E must be a conservative field is false to begin with. So trivially wrong by the definition that I wonder what, as a physicist, you are thinking when you state it.

[johanfprins]

You give me no reason to suspect so. That which I have found contradict you. You give no experimental evidence and no theoretical evidence. You have nothing to offer in this discussion.

I am not going to waste my time arguing against such accusations, since you are just arguing to be arguing. I definitely do not have the time to become an expert on positronium. Neither did I claim that I am one.

I only claimed that as far as I have been informed your argument about diifferent masses determining the magnetic moment of an electron around a positive charge is wrong. If you can produce evidence from positron spectroscopy that my claim is wrong, then I will admit it. But I notice that you are not responding on deuterium and tritium which I believe also prove that your original argument is incorrect. After all, the latter is what the argument is all about. Not whether I am an expert on positron spectroscopy or not!

Kaluza-Klein theory takes pure geometry in 4+1 dimensions to derive maxwells equations, which is a 3+1 EM theory, not a 4+1 em theory.

Although, thinking about it, the fact that Kaluza could derive it from 4+1, probably makes it is a 4+1 theory projected on a 3+1 "plane"

You claimed the fourth dimension had an EM field, which is not purely geometrical. I take it that since this is the best candidate you could present that you don't actually have anything to offer.

As usual you are deliberately distorting the facts. All I pointed out is that it is possible to explain how an electron's mass must be determined by a "spring constant" K , by assuming that it quantum-mechanically moves" within an electric-field along the fourth dimension. I did not claim that it actually happens! And why is this impossible according to you?

Yes. I can write V = 1/r, and F = -grad(V) is a conservative field by definition with field lines going toward infinity.

Mathematically yes. but just as in the case of QFT this is what it is: Pure mathematics: Not physics. One cannot have a singular charge within our universe without having an opposite charge somewhere else: This fact is called "charge-conservation". THINK PHYSICS MY CHILD!

No, I am arguing that since the curl(E) can be non-zero, that your premise that E must be a conservative field is false to begin with.

You see why you are a devious liar? I have not talked about any rotational electric-fields: Only about electric-fields caused by charges. Are you saying that they can be rotational: My God! Help us!

So trivially wrong by the definition that I wonder what, as a physicist, you are thinking when you state it.

Like I said above: You are only arguing because you want to argue: PLEASE GROW UP!!

[kcdodd]

I only claimed that as far as I have been informed your argument about diifferent masses determining the magnetic moment of an electron around a positive charge is wrong. If you can produce evidence from positron spectroscopy that my claim is wrong, then I will admit it. But I notice that you are not responding on deuterium and tritium which I believe also prove that your original argument is incorrect. After all, the latter is what the argument is all about. Not whether I am an expert on positron spectroscopy or not!

You are the one who claims there is a line split due to an orbital magnetic moment of positronium. I have already stated that in what I have read they did not state such a split. And theoretically your claims are countered. However, since you are the one who is claiming to have read it you would already know which paper you read it in. I would have to search every paper ever published to prove it does not exist, when you could just show that one paper to prove that it does. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

I don't care what you admit. Only what you can support. The onus is on you to support your statements, not me. And now you are trying to move the debate to deuterium and tritium when you seem incapable to do so and under reasoning you have yet to actually articulate. Well, I am sorry Hansel I will not follow your trail of breadcrumbs.

You see why you are a devious liar? I have not talked about any rotational electric-fields: Only about electric-fields caused by charges. Are you saying that they can be rotational: My God! Help us!

Of course they can be rotational. Just look at the solutions to maxwells equations. Are you now saying charges do not source those EM fields? Is there some other source you would like to inform me about? Your entire argument about "electric fields are conservative and must have 'sources' and 'sinks'" falls flat on it's face by definition and by maxwells equations, and the best response you have is that I am a devious liar?

Like I said above: You are only arguing because you want to argue: PLEASE GROW UP!!

All I have done is show that your statements have been baseless. You continue to call me a liar, devious, lazy, schizophrenic , etc etc etc, without ever bothering to back up your own statements, and now you want me to grow up? You are quite funny Mr. Prins.

[johanfprins]

You are the one who claims there is a line split due to an orbital magnetic moment of positronium.

That is what I have been led to understand a long time ago.

I have already stated that in what I have read they did not state such a split. And theoretically your claims are countered.

So you have goner through all the papers on positron spectroscopy and can state with absolute certainty that my claims are countered? REALLY!

However, since you are the one who is claiming to have read. I would have to search every paper ever published to prove it does not exist, when you could just show that one paper to prove that it does.

I have NOT claimed to have read iti. Why do you keep on putting words in my mouth and deliberately distort the facts? I do not have the time or the interest to also search every paper until I find it. I have more important things to do than to please you.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

I am not trying to shift the burden of proof. I am just not willing to search through thousands of papers outside the field I am working in. My time is far more valuable than that.

I don't care what you admit. Only what you can support. The onus is on you to support your statements, not me. And now you are trying to move the debate to deuterium and tritium

You are distorting the facts again. I just pointed out that your wrong argument will have similar effects on deuterium and tritium: Why are you dodging this?

Of course they can be rotational. Just look at the solutions to maxwells equations. Are you saying charges do not source those EM fields?

I decided last night to apologise for having used the word liar, but after reading what you have just now written it is difficult not to conclude that you are dishonest. Nowhere have I said that charges do not source EM fields. All I am saying is that they cannot source a static radially symmetric electric field around a solitary charge. Unless charge neutrality does not hold in our universe, all static electric-field lines MUST always be sourced by positive charges and must be sinked by negative charges. Thus the only way that you can get a radially symmetric electric-field around a solitary charge, will be when it is surrounded by an equal positive charge which is distributed over a spherical shell that surrounds the solitary charge.

On second thoughts Is there some other source you would like to inform me about?

Yes, one can only generate circular electric-field lines when you have a time varying magnetic field; and the latter is not generated by static electric-charges but by negative and positive electric charges moving laterally past each other.

Your entire argument about "electric fields are conservative and must have 'sources' and 'sinks'" falls flat on it's face by definition and by maxwells equations

Show me where Maxwell's equations give circular electric fields between static charges? Can you not see that you are talking nonsense?

All I have done is show that your statements have been baseless.

You have not! All you did was to put words in my mouth and then judge my statements by what you want to believe that I have said

You continue to call me a liar, devious, lazy, schizophrenic , etc etc etc,

I apologise it was not meant personally: For example I referred to your argument being schizophrenic, which it was. In retrospect I am sorry that I lost my temper and called you a liar. But I hate it when people try and put words in my mouth and I do find such behaviour seriously devious.

So let us summarise where we differ; I maintain that there cannot be a radially symmetric static electric-field around a solitary charge not experiencing any forces. You maintain that there is. And I asked you time and again to prove it experimentally. You say Maxwell's equations prove it. The fact is that differential equations can be solved for different boundary conditions and when choosing impossible boundary conditions you can generate solutions which are not physically possible. One such a solution is to "derive" that there must be a radially-symmetric electric field around a solitary charge without giving the only boundary condition for which it can be so: i.e. an opposite charge distributed over a surrounding spherical shell.

Furthermore you have claimed that a single charge moving through space can generate a magnetic field. Again by deducing this misconception you do not use the actual boundary conditions which are physically required to generate a magnetic field: i.e. that opposite charges should move laterally to each other.

Obviously it is much easier to solve differential equations when you ignore the boundary conditions required by the physics being modelled. This is exactly where physics has gone wrong since people like Heisenberg and Dirac were allowed to take the lead. The tendency has become to solve the mathematics so that it is mathematically beuatiful and self-consistent and then to "renormalise" the physics to suit the mathematics. As I have pointed out, Dirac solved his supposedly relatavistic wave equation for a SINGLE electron and found that such an electron MUST have an energy of minus infinity. He then "invented" a sea consisting of an infinite number of electrons to rationalise this result. This is NOT physics. If you derive a differential equation and the solution is physically impossible, you are not doing science if you doctor up the result by inventing additional aspects after the fact. To do real physics you mustt go back and find out where you have made a mistake in your initial assumptions.

[kcdodd]

I am just not willing to search through thousands of papers outside the field I am working in.

Oh really? Neither am I.

You are distorting the facts again. I just pointed out that your wrong argument will have similar effects on deuterium and tritium: Why are you dodging this?

I assume you are trying to say the orbital magnetic moments of those isotopes are different then hydrogen?

All I am saying is that they cannot source a static radially symmetric electric field around a solitary charge. Unless charge neutrality does not hold in our universe, all static electric-field lines MUST always be sourced by positive charges and must be sinked by negative charges.

Now, if there is net zero charge in the universe, then by gauss's law the flux integral of electric field through a surface in which everything in the universe is enclosed must be zero. So by putting this constraint on the universe you have satisfied your claim. However, you give no reason why this must be true. You have simply said it must be true. You still give no reason why a universe *could not exist* with a non-zero net charge, and by extension why an electric field around a single charge *could not exist*.

And also by extension, why it even matters to theory since, if we simply put the constraint that Q_universe=0, that ANY solution to maxwells equations would satisfy your condition. One could surround an experiment with a spherically uniform shell of charge that exactly cancels any charge in the experiment and the results are indistinguishable from an experiment where one did not do that. And one could make that shell arbitrarily large not changing any result. So then, why does it matter for this discussion if that shell of charge is actually there or not? One could assume it was not there (ie a non-neutral universe) and the results would be exactly the same. If you are claiming that the results would be different without that shell of charge, then you must explain how, which means you must explain where this use of maxwells equations have failed. You must give equations which differ in some way or else you will not find any theoretical difference to compare your predictions to.

[kcdodd]

Furthermore you have claimed that a single charge moving through space can generate a magnetic field. Again by deducing this misconception you do not use the actual boundary conditions which are physically required to generate a magnetic field: i.e. that opposite charges should move laterally to each other.

And you have given no reason why this is "physically required".

If one could construct a rigid dipole in which two charges are a fixed length apart, and if one were to only translate that dipole along it's axis then the two charges cannot move relative to one-another. Now, according to you there can not be any magnetic field generated because it does not satisfy your relative movement condition.

However, this meets the requirement you listed for electric fields: two charges. Which means you should admit there is an electric field. Now, transforming the fields to a frame where the dipole is moving along it's axis, one can find (in a non-relativistic approximation) that B' = -vxE/c, which means there must be a B field for a moving dipole in classical EM theory, directly countering you claim that charges must move relative to one another to generate a B field. Otherwise your fields are not lorentz covariant.

[johanfprins]

Oh really? Neither am I.

So What?!

I assume you are trying to say the orbital magnetic moments of those isotopes are different then hydrogen?

I am saying that they will be ideal candidates to use and see whether there are changes which fit your model. If there are any changes I am sure it will not be owing to your wrong and impossible model incolving Bohr orbits which do not exist.

So at least you have abandoned your conservative field explanation which is what I was pointing out is flawed on two levels. 1) you cannot even claim that efields must be conservative, and 2) that it follows that a conservative field mandates your claim.

Again you are deliberately distorting what I am writing. I have NOT abandoned "my conservative field explanation". Why can I not claim that an e-field is conservative when it IS conservative? I claim that the e-field between two capacitor plates is ONLY conservative and does NOT have circular components. So your argument that I "cannot even claim that an e-field is conservative" is obviously balderdash. I can claim that the field lines of a conservative e-field must originate at sources and must end at sinks. This is High School physics my friend.

Now, if there is net zero charge in the universe, then by gausses law the flux integral of electric field through a surface in which everything in the universe is enclosed must be zero. So by putting this constraint on the universe you have satisfied your claim.

Thank you, you are making progress.

However, you give no reason why this must be true. You have simply said it must be true. You still give no reason why a universe *could not exist* with a non-zero net charge, and by extension why an electric field around a single charge *could not exist*.

Here I disagree with you: Consider Gausses law in differential format. it states that the divergence of E is equal to the density of charge at that point. If the density of charge is positive, the electric field lines "emerges" from the point. If the charge is negative, electric field lines disapppears into the point. If there is no net charge just as many field lines emerges from the point as disappears into the point. Thus assuming charge-neutrality, which is assumed to be the case in our universe (unless you for some unknown reason knows better), then witin the volume containing all charges, the field lines will be generated by the positive charges and will all disappear within the equall number of negative charges. Thus there cannot be any electric field lines emerging from this volume.

And also by extension, why it even matters to theory since, if we simply put the constraint that Q_universe=0, that ANY solution to maxwells equations would satisfy your condition. One could surround an experiment with a spherically uniform shell of charge that exactly cancels any charge in the experiment and the results are indistinguishable from an experiment where one did not do that.

Really! Please prove this experimentally. You are now talking mathematical gobblygook; not physics.

And one could move that shell arbitrarily far from the experiment not changing any result.

Not true: If you have a charge at the centre of a sphere which is equally charged, you have a capacitor and the physics definitely depends on how far the sphere is away from the central charge.

So then, why does it matter for this discussion if that shell of charge is actually there or not? One could assume it was not there (ie a non-neutral universe) and the results would be exactly the same.

So you can remove one of the plates of a capacitor and still have the same physics: You are really brilliant you know.

If you are claiming that the results would be different without that shell of charge, then you must explain how, which means you must explain where maxwells equations have failed.

Maxwell's equations do not fail. It is the dumkopf who thinks he should get the same answer whether there is such a shell or not such a shell who failed.

You must give equations which differ in some way or else you will not find any theoretical difference to compare your predictions to.

Maxwell's equations are adequate as long as you do not believe that a "capacitor" having only a single charged plate, is, according to Maxwell's equations the same as a capacitor with two opositely-charged plates. tsk, tsk!

[kcdodd]

So your argument that I "cannot even claim that an e-field is conservative" is obviously balderdash. I can claim that the field lines of a conservative e-field must originate at sources and must end at sinks. This is High School physics my friend.

A conservative field has no such requirement! I can set V = x, and F = -grad(V) = -x_hat, and so F is conservative field! div(F) = 0. No sources or sinks! Apparently you did not get this "High School physics" lesson.

Not true: If you have a charge at the centre of a sphere which is equally charged, you have a capacitor and the physics definitely depends on how far the sphere is away from the central charge.

A spherically symmetric shell of charge creates no electric field within the sphere, which means it cannot create any force on a charge placed within the sphere, which means that it cannot change an experiment performed entirely within the sphere. You are probably thinking of a sphere of uniform voltage, not a sphere of uniform charge. Are you seriously even trying?

It is the dumkopf who thinks he should get the same answer whether there is such a shell or not such a shell who failed.

Who is the "dumkopf"? Careful with the name calling Mr. Prins.

I also made an addendum to the post right above if you wish to respond to it as well; I don't know if you saw it. I don't see how your claims are at all self consistent.

[johanfprins]

A conservative field has no such requirement! I can set V = x, and F = -grad(V) = -x_hat, and so F is conservative field! div(F) = 0. No sources or sinks! Apparently you did not get this "High School physics" lesson.

You just do not get it that we are busy with physics not mathematics. What is mathematically possible is not always physically possible. So I dare you to demonstrate experimentally that you can create a static, conservative electric-field without sources and sinks. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can do this!

This is the problem with modern theoretical physicists who you obviously follow with dogmatic devotion: They believe what is mathematically consistent must be physics; and then they end up with QFT and the BCS model for superconduction which is not physics at all.

A spherically symmetric shell of charge creates no electric field within the sphere, which means it cannot create any force on a charge placed within the sphere, means that it cannot change an experiment performed entirely within the sphere.

Oh! Oh! So only the spherically symmetric charge distribution generates field lines which then cancel? Why could it not be the charge at the centre of the sphere who creates the field lines on its own which do not cancel? Which charge is generating the electric field, the spherically distributed charges or the charge of equal magnitude at the centre of the sphere?

Who is the "dumkopf"? Careful with the name calling Mr. Prins.

It was meant as a joke. I apologise if you experienced it in another manner. In fact I am quite impressed with your abilities, even though you have not yet seen the light. Note that by stating that the electric field lines are only created by the spherical shell, you inherently assumed that the charge at the centre has no electric field lines which must be taken into account. It is interesting that your argument led to a conclusion which you are trying to refute.

I also made an addendum to the post right above if you wish to respond to it as well; I don't know if you saw it. I don't see how your claims are at all self consistent.

I will only have time to look at the addendum tomorrow, since we have been invited out by friends.

[icarus]

dumpkoff Prins:

I challenge you to prove the electric fields lines are physical with an experiment, you will get the Nobel prize!

The electric field and the field lines that you use in many of your arguments are purely a mathematical construct.

You just do not get it that we are busy with physics not mathematics. What is mathematically possible is not always physically possible .....

This is the problem with modern theoretical physicists who you obviously follow with dogmatic devotion: They believe what is mathematically consistent must be physics; and then they end up with QFT and the BCS model for superconduction which is not physics at all.

PS: Don't take it personally you insulting old dumpkoff, it is just a joke, on you, pick your poison.