QED meets GR

[kcdodd]

The problem with prins argument is that if one makes two theoretical predictions which differ, then there IS a way to determine if one of the theories is invalid. Only one of the predictions can be realized in an experiment. So far prin has not supplied theory (math) which is even mathematically self consistent, and so does not even make a prediction to compare to any other theory. If his ideas do not produce predictions then in the words of Pauli "it is not even wrong".

I have showed that his ideas at the naive level he has presented them lead to predictions of fields which are different then accepted theory. He says there is no field, accepted theory says there is. So yes, I can make a measurement and show the difference. I showed a a prediction for the field and field energy of a single charge by the concentric shell example. I showed a prediction for a magnetic field for two charges which do not move relative two each other. 2 predictions, 2 possible experiments to show the difference.

If he is simply claiming that the prediction is the same, and at the same time gives no alternate way of calculating the prediction (ie theory), then what are his ideas worth exactly? The math he has been willing to provide made a testable prediction; but it was invalid because there would be no field no matter how many charges there were, which is demonstrably false. Every "charge" would in fact have zero charge, and so there would never be any field for multiple charges to interact with. If he cannot make a prediction then that is the antithesis of physics, no matter how much name calling he can produce.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

After all, is not true science not only experimentation and proof, as well as the free exchange of ideas and thoughts that make it all possible?

Yes, obviously, the latter is the engine that drives science and therefore it is very sad indeed that we have come to a stage where differences between scientists invariably lead to classifications like "crackpot", without trying to argue rationally with each other; and when finding out that your approach has been defective, acknowledging it.

Since my interaction with the main stream physicists during the past 10 years has caused me to be consistently being called a crackpot, I have decided that from now on I will also use this "honorable" title for them: At least until they can define what a "particle" is, and what "zero resistivity" is.

I am greatly indebted to kcdodd that we could end up appreciating each other's approach. He is really a remarkable and capable young man. But I still believe that if Nature made it impossible to measure something, like the electric energy-field around a solitary charge, it is dangerous to assume without any proof that such a field exist, just because it seems mathematically likely that it could exist. Mathematics is only a language and like any language it can lie to you.

Another example is the acceptance that there are "free electrons" within a block of metal, when they are not being measured by applying an electric-field. It might be, and I believe it is, the electric field which creates the mobile wave packets. When making a measurement you change the boundary conditions and what you measure is then what is actually out there before measurement as modified by the measurement. By accepting the latter compelling possibility, the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics falls away totally.

[johanfprins]

The problem with prins argument is that if one makes two theoretical predictions which differ, then there IS a way to determine if one of the theories is invalid. Only one of the predictions can be realized in an experiment.

Then please describe an experiment with which you can verify that there is a radially symmetric electric energy-field around a solitary electron.

So far prin has not supplied theory (math) which is even mathematically self consistent, and so does not even make a prediction to compare to any other theory. If his ideas do not produce predictions then in the words of Pauli "it is not even wrong".

How do I calculate something which I postulate does not exist. And in either case I am not dogmatic about it since I say that if you cannot decide by experiment whether there is a radial-symmetric electric energy-field around a solitary electron one should accept that the two alternatives are equally possible until additional evidence can prove which one is self-consistent with rest of physics. The process of renormalization in QED indicates to me that the assumption that there is such a field around a solitary electron might be flawed.

I have showed that his ideas at the naive level he has presented them lead to predictions of fields which are different then accepted theory. He says there is no field, accepted theory says there is. So yes, I can make a measurement and show the difference.

Good! Describe the experiment to me so that I can do it, and if it proves your derivation to be correct, I will concede that there is such a field as you derived [

I showed a a prediction for the field and field energy of a single charge by the concentric shell example.

How are you going to generate a concentric shell of charge in nature with charge +e to do your experiment?

I showed a prediction for a magnetic field for two charges which do not move relative two each other. 2 predictions, 2 possible experiments to show the difference.

I ask again from you to describe the experiments you are going to use to prove that your derivations are physically valid.

If he is simply claiming that the prediction is the same, and at the same time gives no alternate way of calculating the prediction (ie theory), then what are his ideas worth exactly?

I did not claim this as far as I can remember.

The math he has been willing to provide made a testable prediction; but it was invalid because there would be no field no matter how many charges there were, which is demonstrably false.

I admitted that I made a booboo in that derivation but that does not mean that I am wrong in claiming that your derivations can only be accepted as physically valid after you have proved them experimentally. This is the foundation stone on which physics must always be based.

Every "charge" would in fact have zero charge, and so there would never.

Can you prove that there is any charge before making a measurement? According to the Copenhagen interpretation there is not even an electron before you make a measurement; just a "probability".

[kcdodd]

Are you asking how do I make a measurement of a field? Simple, put something there and if there is a force then there is a field. Put it somewhere else, if there is a different force then there is a different field. The fields are there to predict interactions. When you say there is no field, then that means there is no interaction. I can make a prediction of what those forces are based on the field calculation. That is all that matters. If you say the calculation is wrong then please, tell me what the correct one is! What is the forces from a charge on another charge? What is the force from a dipole whizzing by? How do I calculate them from your ideas?

You ask how can you make a prediction of of something you don't believe in? You already claimed your "theory" gives different predictions. Either it does or it doesn't. What are they? How can anyone make an experiment to disprove you if you don't predict anything! Things interact! Predict how! I have made falsifiable claims by giving field calculations which predict forces when test charges are present. I can hypothetically disprove what I have claimed here. You, however, cannot. You are the one making unfalsifiable claims.

I admitted that I made a booboo in that derivation but that does not mean that I am wrong in claiming that your derivations can only be accepted as physically valid after you have proved them experimentally.

No, it just means you were wrong in what you were claiming. I admit I am making positive claims, and if you're not then this is a big waste of time. So yes, to know who is correct an experiment is required. How does that help you? When you actually predict something then we can talk about experiments. Your "claim" was based on faulty math, and so far cannot predict what the outcome of such experiments would actually be, if they would actually be any different. You just say it would be "different" from what I claim with no rational.

[johanfprins]

Are you asking how do I make a measurement of a field? Simple, put something there and if there is a force then there is a field.

Don't suddenly become stupid on me. I asked you to prove experimentally that there is a radially symmetric electric-field around a solitary charge. If you use a test charge, you do not have a solitary charge anymore and the energy you are measuring is that of the field between the two charges; which is not radially symmetric.

If you say the calculation is wrong then please, tell me what the correct one is! What is the forces from a charge on another charge?

As far as I know Coulomb already solved that without postulating an electric-field. According to his law, when you put one charge equal to zero the force is zero; which could imply that there is no electric field under these conditions.

What is the force from a dipole whizzing by? How do I calculate them from your ideas?

From the start I was really more interested the magnetic field which you claimed that a solitary electron leaves behind as stationary circles around its path. Furthermore I have not said that your mathematical logic is wrong, what I am saying is that you cannot prove by experiment that what you derived is actual physics; and therefore the possibility exists that they are not really modelling what is actually out there.

You ask how can you make a prediction of of something you don't believe in? You already claimed your "theory" gives different predictions. Either it does or it doesn't.

Which theory are you talking about now? My model on superconduction? This model has nothing to do with an electric-field energy around a solitary charge!

I stand by the original guideline on which the Royal Society of London had been founded, and unfortunately at present violates, and that is that any theoretical derivation, model or formula can only be accepted as correct after it has been verified by experiment. I asked you to give me such an experiment and you came back ranting. Please grow up!

[kcdodd]

Don't suddenly become stupid on me. I asked you to prove experimentally that there is a radially symmetric electric-field around a solitary charge. If you use a test charge, you do not have a solitary charge anymore and the energy you are measuring is that of the field between the two charges; which is not radially symmetric.

Are you agreeing that if I put a test charge somewhere, I will get F = e*(E + vxB)? Where E and B are the fields I have already calculated. Either it is or it is not.

[johanfprins]

Don't suddenly become stupid on me. I asked you to prove experimentally that there is a radially symmetric electric-field around a solitary charge. If you use a test charge, you do not have a solitary charge anymore and the energy you are measuring is that of the field between the two charges; which is not radially symmetric.

Are you agreeing that if I put a test charge somewhere, I will get F = e*(E + vxB)? Where E and B are the fields I have already calculated. Either it is or it is not.

Right from the start this is not what the argument was about. I made a mistake to allow you to drag me into calculations which cannot be experimentally verified. My statement was that you cannot confirm experimentally that there is a radially symmetric electric energy-field around a solitary charge. If you use a test charge you do not have a solitary charge and the electric-field that you measure is not radially symmetric. It is the field between two charges, which I accept exists since it can be experimentally measured.

What I am asking you is to confirm experimentally that there is a radially symmetric energy-field around a solitary charge as you have calculated theoretically. If you cannot do this, the probability is at least 50% that there is not such a field-energy.

[kcdodd]

Are you saying there is no field around a single charge, or are you saying there is a field but it just doesn't have any energy in it? If I have just two charges, as in the dipole, is that then the correct field, and thus field energy, or does it not count until I have a third charge to test for the fields for that as well?

If I create a test charge at a point in space (and it can be pair production to be consistent) before which there were no test charges, there is either a field there already or there is not. Imagine the original charge to be a million kilometers away. If there was no field there beforehand how did it get there in zero time at the instant of pair production?

And what if an electron and positron annihilate one another. And they were the only charges in the whole universe. There is now field energy with zero charges! What is so bloody special about a *single* charge.

[johanfprins]

Are you saying there is no field around a single charge, or are you saying there is a field but it just doesn't have any energy in it?

I say that I do not know since I cannot determine what there actually is experimentally. It could be latent field without energy which only induces energy when a second charge interacts with it. It might even have an energy field around it: But as an experimentalist I remain neutral until related evidence proves what the situation actually is. I consider renormalization as strong evidence that there is not such an energy field.

If I have just two charges, as in the dipole, is that then the correct field, and thus field energy, or does it not count until I have a third charge to test for the fields for that as well?

Inthis case you do have two charges and I have no problem with your derivation. From the start I was asking about a magnetic field around a single moving charge; not about a dipole.

If I create a test charge at a point in space (and it can be pair production to be consistent) before which there were no test charges, there is either a field there already or there is not. Imagine the original charge to be a million kilometers away.

How do you know it was a million kilometers away? The positive and negative charges might have been on top of each other all along to form light energy which is only created by accelerating charges, but do not form part of the field around a solitary charge.

And what if an electron and positron annihilate one another. And they were the only charges in the whole universe. There is now field energy with zero charges!

Exactly since they now form light energy which can exist with zero charge.

What is so bloody special about a *single* charge.

It is so "bloody" special because you cannot determine experimentally whether it has a radially symmetric field energy around it or not!

[icarus]

It is so "bloody" special because you cannot determine experimentally whether it has a radially symmetric field energy around it or not!

... or so you might think .....

[kcdodd]

Prins, you keep peddeling in so many different directions it is hard to keep track. The whole discussion started with an electron and a proton, so you DID have a problem with the magnetic field of two charges in the beginning but now you backpeddel when put to task. Either your ideas lead to different predictions or they do not, and that is all that matters. I have grown a bit tired of your shifting the discussion around to avoid saying anything substantia and being put to task on your ideasl, and now you even contradict your inital idea which was that there is no magnetic field for two charges which don't move relative to each other. So, then, DO you have any consistent theory whichwhich leads to a different testable result or don't you?

[johanfprins]

Prins, you keep peddeling in so many different directions it is hard to keep track.

If you experienced me as such, I apologize since it was not my intention. I do admit that sometimes when I am in a rush, and I usually am when posting on a thread, I do not explain in enough detail what I am actually trying to say. So I will try to give a bit more background in this posting.

The whole discussion started with an electron and a proton, so you DID have a problem with the magnetic field of two charges in the beginning but now you backpeddel when put to task.

Yes you are correct. But not with the movement of an electric-field of a rigid dipole past me with constant speed v along its axis.

We started off with an electron circling a proton. And I wrote and still maintain that there cannot be a magnetic moment in this case, since a magnetic field only manifests when opposite charges move relative to each other. You then came up with the idea of a rigid dipole moving past with a speed v along its axis to prove me wrong.

I allowed you to go ahead with your derivation, hoping that you will realize that the Lorentz transformation does introduce an effective movement of the two charges relative to each other. How? The Lorentz transformation also involves time. Thus when the dipole is stationary, the time at the positive charge is the same as at the negative charge. But when the dipole passes by with a constant speed v, along its axis, the time at the positive charge is different from the time at the negative charge. This introduces a condition which is similar to relative movement:ergo a magnetic field appears.

There is another, even more interesting analogy: It is the de Broglie wavelength which is caused by the Lorentz transformation. Consider the lowest energy standing wave on a string. It has no momentum, but the string can be seen to do a harmonic movement through its equilibrium position, even though every point is moving in phase with every other point: i.e. the phase angles are exactly the same at each point along the string.

Take the corresponding de Broglie wave within a box. You do not see this harmonic motion in 3D space, since it is occurring within a complex plane in which the phase angles are also exactly the same at every point of the wave. If you, calculate th intensity of such a stationary electron wave, there are no harmonic vibrations observable within 3D space.

It thus seems reasonable to assume that any lowest energy standing electron wave will have a non-changing intensity and that the phase angles at every point are the same. This must thus also be the case for the minimum energy standing electron wave which represents a stationary electron within its inertial reference frame.

Now for a wave to be able to diffract it must have crests and troughs moving past since in this case the phase angle must be a function of position. How can such a standing electron wave diffract when it moves relative to a diffraction grating? This becomes possible as follows: When doing the Lorentz transformation for the electron wave which moves past you, the time-coordinate at each point along the wave is different. Thus the phase angle now changes with position and therefore the electron-wave does have crests and troughs moving past and therefore it can now diffract. Furthermore, if it were not for the Lorentz transformation a stationary electron wave must have had an infinite de Broglie wavelength. Obviously nonsense!

So what you forgot when you did your dipole calculation, is that it is this time coordinate which now changes with position along the dipole which causes the "relative motion" resulting in the magnetic field appearing.

Either your ideas lead to different predictions or they do not, and that is all that matters.

My ideas do lead to the prediction that an electron circling a proton cannot generate a magnetic moment, but not that a moving electric field between opposite charges cannot generate a magnetic field.

I have grown a bit tired of your shifting the discussion around to avoid saying anything substantial and being put to task on your ideas

As I wrote above, I apologize that you experience me in such a way since it was and is not my intention to dive and duck.

and now you even contradict your inital idea which was that there is no magnetic field for two charges which don't move relative to each other.

As you will see above I do not contradict my initial idea. If your calculation for a dipole applies to a Bohr hydrogen atom, then when a hydrogen atom passes at a speed v, one should be able to measure a magnetic pulse every time that the electron and proton aligns along the direction of movement. I am not aware of such an observation.

[kcdodd]

I allowed you to go ahead with your derivation, hoping that you will realize that the Lorentz transformation does introduce an effective movement of the two charges relative to each other. How? The Lorentz transformation also involves time. Thus when the dipole is stationary, the time at the positive charge is the same as at the negative charge. But when the dipole passes by with a constant speed v, along its axis, the time at the positive charge is different from the time at the negative charge. This introduces a condition which is similar to relative movement:ergo a magnetic field appears.

You are jumping through hoops to make it sound as though your hypothesis that relative motion is needed to generate a magnetic field applies to my counter example. The magnitude of the four vector displacement between the two charges of the dipole is a constant and a lorentz invariant. That means it is the same in every reference frame, and does not depend on time. The charges are at different times from their rest frame, yes, but that time difference is a constant, just as the spatial separation is a constant, and is a direct consequence of the four-displacement being an invariant. I don't know what definition you use for relative motion, but there is no relative motion in any sense of the word that I know of, no matter how much you try to twist the words around.

Besides that, I can define simultaneous time coordinates in any frame I choose. So even IF you could manipulate the definition of "relative motion" to apply to transformed coordinates, I can always choose a coordinate system that bypasses your definition and show they are not moving relative to each other. Trying to now claim otherwise, to avoid admitting this idea must be wrong, is just ridiculous.

I am also intentionally not responding to the other stuff because that is simply distracting from the more basic implications of your statements which appear contrary.

My ideas do lead to the prediction that an electron circling a proton cannot generate a magnetic moment, but not that a moving electric field between opposite charges cannot generate a magnetic field.

And your experimental evidence?

[johanfprins]

You are jumping through hoops to make it sound as though your hypothesis that relative motion is needed to generate a magnetic field applies to my counter example.

Let me try and explain by using an analogy:
Consider a linear, coherent harmonic wave passing by. At every point along it there is a clock recording its phase angle around that point. The clocks along the wave are out of phase with each other; ie. they each show a different "time". Thus if the wave-amplitude is an electric field vector, it is this "change in time" with position which causes it to induce the magnetic component of the wave.

Now you have a static electric dipole field as you have considered. It moves past you along its axis. Now calculate the time at each point along the axis of the dipole as you observe it from your reference frame. You find that each point has a different time. So the field is not static anymore and therefore it must induce a magnetic field

To generate a similar wave from two opposite charges not moving as a dipole relative to you, the charges have to move relative to each other. Thus the Lorentz transformation is equivalent to introducing a relative movement between the dipole charges which generates a magnetic field.

I hope this is more clear.