Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 91

Thread: Classical Electrostatics shows that growing fields imply Evanescent Matter

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124

    Classical Electrostatics shows that growing fields imply Evanescent Matter

    Growing fields imply Evanescent Matter

    Helder Velez

    Abstract:

    The conservation of energy in a field that obeys an inverse square law, as Electrostatics or Gravitation, imply that in order to set an exterior field that propagates at a finite speed ‘c’, the energy contents associated to the source mass/charge must obey an evanescent law. It means, namely, that we must have a shrinking matter scenario [AlfCP, AlfAstro]instead of a space expansion one.

    A spherical shell of charge ‘q’ and radius ‘a’ sets an electrical field:
    (1)

    that has the energy U, ignoring :
    (2)

    Assuming that all of the mass of the electron is due to its electromagnetic field energy and from Einstein's mass/energy equivalence [McDonald]
    (3)
    (4)

    This energy U, proportional to the electron mass, has been considered a constant valued quantity.

    1. Considering that the above formula for U was derived long time ago when the ‘fathers’ of Electromagnetism ‘presumed’ that the universe was infinite in age, and we know now differently.
    2. Being able to assign the label ‘zero’ into the arrow of time, as a beginning, we are dealing now with a finite interval of time.
    3. Being r=ct, c=1, for a stationary universe and uniform time, there exists a maximum r, determined by time ‘now’ and equation for U becomes U(t)

    (5)

    This energy in the E field evolves from 0 at t=t_{a} growing asymptotically to m_{e} as time evolve.

    We must conclude, after dismissing the traceable possibility that q^2 is simply proportional to time, that U(t) is constant iff

    (6)


    Conclusions:
    The conclusion must be such that the overall energy must remain constant, implying a transfer of energy from particles to its associated fields. Thus, the paradoxes expressed by Mr. Claus got explained[Turtur].

    Acknowledging this fact the above equations of the field and energy became inadequate because E field (here and now) depends on the value of the charge at a previous time : q(then).

    The scenario of evanescent matter must have consequences on our deeply rooted believes of a constant, thru time, of Time, Length and Mass Units, and the validity of the 'space expansion' must be reconsidered.

    References
    [AlfCP] A. G. Oliveira and R. Abreu, Cosmological Principle and Relativity – Part I (physics/0205033)

    [AlfAstro] A. G. Oliveira and R. Abreu, A relativistic time variation of matter/space fits both local and cosmic data, astro-ph/0208365)

    [McDonald] Kirk McDonald, Princeton.edu, ph501, Lecture 3, pages 29/31, Electrostatic Energy (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mc...01lecture3.pdf)

    [Turtur] Claus W. Turtur, Two Paradoxes of the Existence of electric Charge (physics/0710.3253)
    Last edited by Swift; 2010-Sep-20 at 07:38 PM. Reason: Request by OP to change title

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    Growing fields imply Evanescent Matter

    Helder Velez

    Abstract:

    The conservation of energy in a field that obeys an inverse square law, as Electrostatics or Gravitation, imply that in order to set an exterior field that propagates at a finite speed ‘c’, the energy contents associated to the source mass/charge must obey an evanescent law. It means, namely, that we must have a shrinking matter scenario [AlfCP, AlfAstro]instead of a space expansion one.

    A spherical shell of charge ‘q’ and radius ‘a’ sets an electrical field:
    (1)

    that has the energy U, ignoring :
    (2)

    Assuming that all of the mass of the electron is due to its electromagnetic field energy and from Einstein's mass/energy equivalence [McDonald]
    (3)
    (4)
    Not exactly: mc^2=q^2/2a so, m=q^2/(2ac^2)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    [*] Being r=ct, c=1, for a stationary universe and uniform time, there exists a maximum r, determined by time ‘now’ and equation for U becomes U(t)
    There is no reason to set the variable for integration, r , as r=ct

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    880
    Seriously, how do you understand mathematics like that !
    Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    IIRC, the a for the electron is already proven to be too large. Kinda blows the rest out of the water.

    This is also a classical treatment of a very quantum problem. You should refomulate into QED and see if there is still a problem

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124
    to macaw question nr 1: quoting(Not exactly: mc^2=q^2/2a so, m=q^2/(2ac^2))

    c=1 is mentioned in the eq #3, then m=q^2/2a. I'm using the Plank Units convention WP

    to macaw question nr 2: quoting(There is no reason to set the variable for integration, r , as r=ct):

    r=ct is a valid equation that translates the sentence: the fields expand at c speed.

    to kevin1981 : thanks

    if you can understand the first sentence of the abstract you got it all, math is only a mean to translate that sentence to a serie of unequivoque steps.

    to korjic question 1: quoting( IIRC, the a for the electron is already proven to be too large. Kinda blows the rest out of the water.)

    you remembered correctly: the measured electron radius is much shorter than that(*), and I used it on purpose (value obtained at pag 30 of reference [McDonald])

    to korjic question 2: quoting(This is also a classical treatment of a very quantum problem. You should refomulate into QED and see if there is still a problem)

    I will quote Bo Thidé online book 'Electromagnetic Field Theory',page 171, chapter 9

    quoting(QED gives a consistent description of how electromagnetic fields are quantised into photons and describes their intrinsic and extrinsic properties. However, this theory is beyond the scope of the current book.)

    note that QED stands for Quantum electrodynamics and static fields do not require any 'dynamics' picture nor a quantum one.

    ---
    (*)The actual measure of the electron radius had evolved thru time (the value that Hans de Vries(**) mentions in the chapter1 is significantly lower), and the same happened with proton radius measure. I had to use some exterior surface, out of the source, as a starting point and the real value is not important at all, and besides that I did not reused it in the text.

    (**) Understanding Relativistic Quantum Field Theory by Hans de Vries (book in progress, ch1)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    c=1 is mentioned in the eq #3, then m=q^2/2a.
    Then you may have a typo in your latex code, it says m=q²/a

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    to korjic question 2: quoting(This is also a classical treatment of a very quantum problem. You should refomulate into QED and see if there is still a problem)

    I will quote Bo Thidé online book 'Electromagnetic Field Theory',page 171, chapter 9

    quoting(QED gives a consistent description of how electromagnetic fields are quantised into photons and describes their intrinsic and extrinsic properties. However, this theory is beyond the scope of the current book.) note that QED stands for Quantum electrodynamics and static fields do not require any 'dynamics' picture nor a quantum one.
    You're playing semantics and are either ignorant of the development of QED or being intentionally obtuse. In QED, even a static field is not static, it's constantly forming and destroying particles. So, when reformulated in QED, either the problem, as you described goes away, or it does not. Despite your protestations to the contrary, the problem, as korjic points out, IS, a quantum problem and needs QED to be solved correctly. And, as your reference points out, the problem can be described in QED terms. So, why don't you rewrite it using QED and show where there is a problem using QED?

    I would point out, on that same page your referenced in Thide's book there is the sentence prior to the one you quoted, but for some reason you left out:
    A more complete and accurate theory, valid also when quantum effects are significant, is provided by quantum electrodynamics.

    Note he doesn't say it's more accurate or more complete only when fields are static or only when quantum effects are significant. He specifically states that quantum theory is more complete and more accurate. As for being beyond the scope of his book, the title is "Electromagnetic Field Theory". Which doesn't include QED. So the honorable thing to do would be to check your idea using QED, don't you think?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post

    to macaw question nr 2: quoting(There is no reason to set the variable for integration, r , as r=ct):

    r=ct is a valid equation that translates the sentence: the fields expand at c speed.
    There is no reason to set r=ct since:

    1. The field that you are talking about is electrostatic, see your equation.
    2. There is no connection between the field propagation and the age of the universe.The age of the universe has nothing to do with the time when the field was created.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    to korjic question 1: quoting( IIRC, the a for the electron is already proven to be too large. Kinda blows the rest out of the water.)

    you remembered correctly: the measured electron radius is much shorter than that(*), and I used it on purpose (value obtained at pag 30 of reference [McDonald])
    The current accepted value for the radius of the electron is zero. The fact that you found a reference that gives a number is pretty irrelevant. This is another inacuracy added to the problem by doing a classical treatment of a quantum problem.
    to korjic question 2: quoting(This is also a classical treatment of a very quantum problem. You should refomulate into QED and see if there is still a problem)

    I will quote Bo Thidé online book 'Electromagnetic Field Theory',page 171, chapter 9

    quoting(QED gives a consistent description of how electromagnetic fields are quantised into photons and describes their intrinsic and extrinsic properties. However, this theory is beyond the scope of the current book.)

    note that QED stands for Quantum electrodynamics and static fields do not require any 'dynamics' picture nor a quantum one.
    Whether the situation is static or not, it is most definitely quantum. Your formulation is useless unless you can show through quantum theory that it is the same in quantum terms as classical.

    Also, dynamics in any form is about what happens with any time evolution, including no time evolution, which is commonly referred to as the static case.

    Also, the changing fields in your OP mean the situation is most definitely not static. Static means unchanging.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Then you may have a typo in your latex code, it says m=q²/a
    Not really a typo Mr Caveman. You can check pag 30 of ref. [McDonald].

    May be I should add some more wording before #3. The context is about the self-energy of the electron(see pag 29/30).

    The eq. #6 (the conclusion that justifies the abstract) is a time derivative and it is imune to constant factors and/or terms. Thats the case.

    The equations #1,2,3,4 are standard established theory.
    The considerations 1,2,3 are general knowledge and I do not expect any dispute on them.
    Only eqs #5 and #6 are not in the books.

    Thank you for your remark.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124

    playground is classical electodynamics, my choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    ... So the honorable thing to do would be to check your idea using QED, don't you think?
    Honor is not valid argument.
    Unless a stronger motivation arises, I will stay within 'classical electodynamics' the playground I've chosen.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    There is no reason to set r=ct since:

    1. The field that you are talking about is electrostatic, see your equation.
    2. There is no connection between the field propagation and the age of the universe.The age of the universe has nothing to do with the time when the field was created.
    ..
    any physical field, electromagnatic or gravitational, expands at 'c' speed. It is consensual.

    again, for the second time:
    r=ct is a valid equation that translates the sentence: the fields expand at c speed.
    (may be you do not know yet what is an equation, as appears in this recent Baut)
    I have a strong feeling that I can not help you.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    Honor is not valid argument.
    Unless a stronger motivation arises, I will stay within 'classical electodynamics' the playground I've chosen.
    Then this discussion is pointless. You are using the wrong theory the wrong way and getting a wrong result. Anything you post here concerning your OP is nonsense, and I will continue to point that out if this discussion continues.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    ..
    any physical field, electromagnatic or gravitational, expands at 'c' speed. It is consensual.

    again, for the second time:
    r=ct is a valid equation that translates the sentence: the fields expand at c speed.
    (may be you do not know yet what is an equation, as appears in this recent Baut)
    I have a strong feeling that I can not help you.
    No, it is we who cannot help you, since you cannot see that if dx/dt is not zero, the situation is not static. Your whole approach is flawed.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124

    PDG : classical electron radius

    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    The current accepted value for the radius of the electron is zero. The fact that you found a reference that gives a number is pretty irrelevant.
    about electron radius I've already answered to you, and I pointed out the irrelevance of its actual value (in the OT context).
    The official reference is the PDG (Particle Data Group) - see under classical electron radius (re=2.817 940 325(28)*10^−15m)
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    Also, dynamics in any form is about what happens with any time evolution, including no time evolution, which is commonly referred to as the static case.

    Also, the changing fields in your OP mean the situation is most definitely not static. Static means unchanging.
    I do not know what to say. Sorry.
    I will try later, maybe.
    Last edited by heldervelez; 2010-Sep-20 at 12:23 AM. Reason: rephrase, to be correctly interpreted

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    ..
    any physical field, electromagnatic or gravitational, expands at 'c' speed. It is consensual.
    Consensual? Are you sure about it?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    ..

    again, for the second time:
    r=ct is a valid equation that translates the sentence: the fields expand at c speed.
    It might be "for the second time" but it is as wrong as the first time, r is the radial coordinate, so it cannot be an "equation"

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    Not really a typo Mr Caveman. You can check pag 30 of ref. [McDonald].

    May be I should add some more wording before #3. The context is about the self-energy of the electron(see pag 29/30).

    The eq. #6 (the conclusion that justifies the abstract) is a time derivative and it is imune to constant factors and/or terms. Thats the case.

    The equations #1,2,3,4 are standard established theory.
    The considerations 1,2,3 are general knowledge and I do not expect any dispute on them.
    Only eqs #5 and #6 are not in the books.

    Thank you for your remark.
    He's telling you the same thing I told you earlier, that you inadvertently dropped a factor of 1/2.
    This is in ADDITION to the fact that your "classical" approach is in direct contradiction to about 50 years of QED and with experiment that sets the "radius" of the electron to a much smaller number then the one you calculated. Experiment puts a limit of 10^-22m on the electron radius, much smaller than your classical number.
    Last edited by macaw; 2010-Sep-20 at 12:45 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,595
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    (may be you do not know yet what is an equation, as appears in this recent Baut)
    I have a strong feeling that I can not help you.
    heldervelez,

    Do not try to play moderator and do not make judgments about other members abilities. If you think someone else's post is inappropriate, Report it. Consider that a serious warning.

    And it is not a question as to whether or not you can help other people. It is your obligation to prove your idea and to answer questions that are put to you about it. You don't get to choose whose questions to answer.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Consensual? Are you sure about it?
    Cite a reference, please. I will check it.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    Cite a reference, please. I will check it.
    See here

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    .. since you cannot see that if dx/dt is not zero, the situation is not static.
    dx/dt is comonly used to express speed, the rate of change of position .
    eq #6 is the expression that if Energy U is Conserved (a requirement) than dU/dt must be 0.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    Honor is not valid argument.
    Unless a stronger motivation arises, I will stay within 'classical electodynamics' the playground I've chosen.
    The fact that one of your references specifically states that quantum theory is more accurate and more complete (something else I mentioned, which you left off) should be a stronger motivation to check on your idea. Classical Electrodynamics is known to be wrong. Good for a approximation, but still, wrong. In this case, checking your calculations against QED should be one of the first things you did. Why would you refuse? Are you that afraid that QED would show your idea and paper to be nonsense?

    If you continue only using classical theories, that are known to be wrong, then you are just being intellectually dishonest to ignore those facts. And we are justified in pointing out that you refuse to use a quantum theory for a quantum problem.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    dx/dt is comonly used to express speed, the rate of change of position .
    eq #6 is the expression that if Energy U is Conserved (a requirement) than dU/dt must be 0.
    If r=ct then the radius is changing with time. The rest of what you say is nonsense.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    If r=ct then the radius is changing with time. The rest of what you say is nonsense.
    Precisely, thank you.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    124

    I propose the renaming of this thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    ... In this case, checking your calculations against QED should be one of the first things you did. Why would you refuse? Are you that afraid that QED would show your idea and paper to be nonsense?
    I did not checked about QED. I ordered the Feynmam QED book only now.
    As a general rule I will say that is unphysical any treatment that includes integration over an infinite time interval or over all space. It can only be carried over limited intervals.
    I consider also unphysical the use of frequency/wavelength 0 or infinite.
    And the reason is that there is not enough time available.
    The radius of the universe we observe in this precise moment is greater than any that where observed in past. And it is always growing at the rate 'c'.
    Any particle in the physical universe can not interact with particles/fields/vacuum outside the radius r(t)=ct centered on it.
    IMO any measurable quantity in any Physical theory, quantum or classical, must be bounded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    ... If you continue only using classical theories, that are known to be wrong, then you are just being intellectually dishonest to ignore those facts. And we are justified in pointing out that you refuse to use a quantum theory for a quantum problem.
    A classical theory that looks promising, IMO, and avoids quantum, can arise from Goedecke's work (1964) -- Classical Radionless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory (Physical Review vol 135, 1B). Some works have been done recently following his (and others) pathway.
    No one, it seems, charged him of 'intellectual dishonesty' just because he ignored the quantum nature of the problem.
    ------
    Classical Electrodynamics is implied by the development of th OT, I wish to make it explicit and to settle this point I propose the renaming of this thread according to the spirit of the formulation:
    Classical Electrostatics shows that growing fields imply Evanescent Matter.

    I do not have any claim that the same problem can be showed to exist outside of classical electrostactic.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    The radius of the universe we observe in this precise moment is greater than any that where observed in past. And it is always growing at the rate 'c'.
    Cosmological observations contradict your statement above.
    Last edited by macaw; 2010-Sep-20 at 09:33 PM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    And it is always growing at the rate 'c'.
    I think the farther we look, it is actually expanding quicker than 'c'.
    Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,595
    Quote Originally Posted by heldervelez View Post
    Classical Electrodynamics is implied by the development of th OT, I wish to make it explicit and to settle this point I propose the renaming of this thread according to the spirit of the formulation:
    Classical Electrostatics shows that growing fields imply Evanescent Matter.

    I do not have any claim that the same problem can be showed to exist outside of classical electrostactic.
    I have changed the title as requested. It does not change your obligations to answer questions and to prove your idea, whatever it is.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Similar Threads

  1. QM indeterminism vs classical fields
    By tashirosgt in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-05, 07:34 PM
  2. Parallels between gravity and electrostatics
    By Seiryuu in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-05, 03:41 PM
  3. Anti-matter containment fields
    By TobiasTheViking in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-28, 09:38 PM
  4. Magnetic Fields Help Black Holes Pull In Matter
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-27, 12:14 PM
  5. Dark Matter Alternatives: Magnetic Fields Ruled out
    By dgruss23 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-17, 10:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: