Explanation of Paradox

More
19 years 3 months ago #11694 by Larry Burford
Dave,

While I agree with TVF that the gravitational force case has fewer complications than the electrical force case, it is not without its own complications. In this particular discussion one of those complications is that you have stated that you are more familiar with electricity than with gravity.

Another complication is that most schools today teach that gravitational force is not a real force, and does not propagate. If nothing propagates there can be no aberration.

===

Assuming that you agree that electrical force is a real force, and that it does propagate with some finite speed, I'd like to see if we can work out the aberration issue using electrical force. Are you interested in trying?

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 8 months ago #18585 by DaveL
Replied by DaveL on topic Reply from Dave Lush
I have written up some of my work related to this topic, and posted it for public viewing. Please check it out and sign the guestbook.


home.comcast.net/~d.lush/dave_30DecY6.htm

Title: Aberration and the Stability of the Classical Atom

Abstract:

An analysis of electromagnetic forces present in a bound
Hydrogen atom is presented, including forces due to the orbital motion
of intrinsic magnetic moments, and accounting for propagation delay
between the atomic constituents. Orbital motion of the
electron intrinsic magnetic moment is shown to result in a radial force
on the proton that is not directly balanced by a similar force on the
electron. It is argued that this unbalanced force may give
rise to oscillatory motions that plausibly may account
for the apparent wave nature of the electron.
Propagation delay of this force results in an aberrational force capable of negating
the radiation resistance force expected from energy
and momentum conservation principles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 8 months ago #19372 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DaveL</i>
<br />I have written up some of my work related to this topic, and posted it for public viewing. Please check it out and sign the guestbook.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We discourage the use of this web site for advertising of any sort, including advertising other web sites. I do understand why you did it in this instance. But this is a discussion board, not a place to publish papers or even abstracts. To generate discussion here, what you should do is post a self-contained summary of the physics with comparison of the pros and cons versus the Meta Science way of explaining the same phenomena. Then just provide the link as a reference for anyone who might want to see equations or technical depth.

As it stands, your abstract does not provide a good basis for a discussion. And people are unlikely to be lured to your site without some reason to get interested in it. The abstract makes some assertions of a possibly mathematical character with no hint of any plausible physics behind them. In particular, since this is the Meta Research Message Board, what physics do you propose to go up against the FTL propagation of gravitons producing density changes in elysium that is the model for both gravitation and electrodynamics put forward by Meta Science and discussed often here in other topics? What advantages does your physics offer? What defect in Meta Science does it overcome? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 8 months ago #18637 by tvanflandern
An anonymous message pointed out that I did not provide links to the subjects in Meta Science I mentioned in the last message. These discussions will be found in this "Gravity & Relativity" forum and in the "Meta Science" forum. By default, subscribers see only topics active in the last 30 days in each forum. The older topics and messages are still there -- you just need to open your message "horizon" to see them:

Click on the forum name (e.g., "Gravity & Relativity"). On the right side of the page just above the topic headers is the drop-down option box for your topic horizon for that forum. Choose an older horizon to see more older topics and older history of discussions.

The published articles are in the book "Pushing Gravity", in our Meta Research Bulletin, and on our "Gravity" CD. More of these will become available on the web site in the future. But for most MRB articles, there is a 2-year horizon before they can appear on the web site. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 6 months ago #16461 by DaveL
Replied by DaveL on topic Reply from Dave Lush
Tom, the paper I wrote and linked to is directly related to the discussion in this thread, and answers the questions I raised in it. I'll explain further but first I would like to respond directly to this statement by you:

tvf wrote: "The abstract makes some assertions of a possibly mathematical character with no hint of any plausible physics behind them."

The abstract is merely that and so there is only so much it can explain, but as it says that electromagnetic forces are being analyzed, I was hoping the reader would take it to mean that I am using standard tools of electromagnetism, which is indeed the case. The mathematics behind this is not terribly complicated, but it certainly is too complicated to post directly here. In any case, the point I want to get to is that I use entirely only completely standard electromagnetic theory, and arrive at what might seem quite paradoxical results. I expected you would be interested in this sort of thing.

After thinking about Carlip's response to your paper I got to thinking that even assuming everything he said about EM theory is true there were some interesting issues remaining. Supposing the propagation delay effects are canceled to first order, that could easily leave a residual effect that would be significant. Carlip in one of your online discussions I think hinted that the leftover energy might account for what is radiated. Well, I thought, if that were the case that would be pretty important because the radiation resistance force is quite mysterious as I think I cover in the thread above. A new way to understand it would be quite valuable. On the other hand, if aberrational forces could cancel radiation resistance that should be interesting as well as it might for the first time provide a non-ad hoc explanation for the stability of atomic systems.

So I analyzed the magnitude of the aberrational Coulomb force classically for the point charge hydrogen model. It turned out that the residual aberrational component after the correction as pointed out by Carlip is quite small, too small to cancel radiation resistance at typical atomic radii, although it has the proper sign to cancel. Also, adding in the time advanced action part (as proposed by Wheeler and Feynman and discussed above) does exactly cancel any non-conservatve force for a circular orbit, identically. For an elliptical orbit it is not zero everywhere but it appears to integrate to zero around the course of the orbit.

That was some substantial effort that didn't amount to anything of great import, but I found the answer to the questions I proposed here and so do feel at least duty-bound to report about it. No need for somebody else to repeat the exercise at this point. Then I went on thinking about the classical atomic model, and it occurred to me that there is another interesting force, simply another direct consequence of Maxwell's equations, due to the intrinsic magnetic moments of the electron and proton. As I show in the paper, the motion of the magnetic moments naturally leads to electric forces due to the time variation of the intrinsic magnetc fields. These forces are rather asymetrical though because the electron has a much larger intrinsic magnetic moment, and also because it is moving a lot faster. So, this force that is merely a consequence of Maxwell's theory would seem to break that old adage about for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think that is worth knowing. I also think it's weird enough it could provide a basis for quantum behavior. It has Planck's constant attached to it via the spin. I have gotten the Bohr formula for the hydrogen ground state radius from it a couple of different ways. One of them is in the currently posted paper, and the other I hope to post pretty soon. I won't bother you with it though if you're uninterested.

The final wrinkle I will trouble you with is how when one takes into account propagation delay for this force due to motion of intrinsic moments, the aberrational component of it is quite large, larger than in the case of the Coulomb force. It's interesting because the Coulomb force is about a million times stronger to begin with, but the correction term Carlip points out integrates out in the case of the other, so that the aberrational force is enough to cancel radiation resistance. It has a different range dependency, though, so it doesn't happen at just any distance. Rather, as I show in the paper, it happens in the classical hydrogen atom at 9/16 times the Bohr ground-state radius. So, the radiative decay of the classical atom that is mentioned in so many physics textbooks simply doesn't happen according to Maxwell's elecftrodynamics. It stops at about the typical atomic dimension. Also, this newly-recognized (so far as I know, and I have now done quite a bit of searching through the APS online archives back to the 1800s) aberrational force does not cancel out when the time-advanced action is included.

Tom, we do disagree on what is the significance and interpretation of these kind of seemingly paradoxical phenomena, but in any case I believe you deserve great credit for raising the issues.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 6 months ago #16511 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DaveL</i>
<br />After thinking about Carlip's response to your paper I got to thinking that even assuming everything he said about EM theory is true ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">However, it was not true. The Foundations of Physics paper Vigier and I wrote is pretty clear about why Carlip's argument is wrong, and Carlip himself has never challenged our rebuttal argument.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom, we do disagree on what is the significance and interpretation of these kind of seemingly paradoxical phenomena...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no cancellation of aberration, which tends to invalidate conclusions based on the assumption that there is such cancellation. That is the main point where we diverge. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.699 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum