Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

OK, let us suppose that I have a charge in harmonic motion, its maximal velocity relative to me is 10^-12c. it produces an electric and magnetic field. let us look at a small fixed region (fixed means that does not move, velocity = 0, static) since this region is static, v= 0, no velocity, the Maxwell's equation are verified. in these points of space there are no charges, these static points are not affected by the electric and magnetic fields, but the fields are there. Do you agree that there exist fixed points (velocity of these points = 0) where there exist electric and magnetic fields?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1100f,
No I don't agree. The unique solution Maxwell Equations give that can have an electric field verifying Divergence(E) = rho/epsilon = 0 (rho= density of charge) are the propagating waves functions with a unique velocity possible: C
No other velocity is possible and v=0 does not qualify.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what you say is that if I take a fixed point in space there could not exist an electric field at this point.
You say that writing the field as E(x,y,z) is absurd

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1100f,
No.
I'm saying that any Electric or Magnetic Field is ever related to some source for the fields that it can be distant ones of course ( action-at-a-distance fields! ).
It seems I misunderstood what you said above.
I don't understand your point now.

 

So do you agree that if I write E(x,y,z), these points with coordinates x,y and z are fixed in space?

 

1100f,
Yes, but what is your point?

 

My point is that since these points are fixed, they have zero velocity.
Do you agree?

 

Yes I agree and I understand now, you will say that for that points Maxwell Equations have a solution in the form of propagating waves, passing through them and not carrying travelling points.
Ok, I must think about this...

 

Let's go for example to section 5.2
You say that in pair anihilation a positron and an electron anhilates and transform into a photon and a neutrino.
How can that be since the spin (or more precisely the helicity) of the neutrino is 1/2, that of the photon is 1 and for the electron it is 1/2.
Do you disagree with the conservation of angular momentum?


edit: you said that they anihilates into two photons and a neutrino. this stil violates angular momentum

 

A positron and an electron can annihilate in two opposite photons as current theories say, the new theories add a "neglihible neutrino.

Anyway the new theories predict variable spins for photons and neutrinos.
They both are composed by two rings, generating electric and magnetic forces in equilibrium. Their lenght is "large" and the fields are "weaker" for photons and neutrinos with low mass (for photons this means also low energy). Their lenght is "short" and the fields are "stronger" for particles with bigger masses (for photons this means also bigger energy).
This way for example visible may be light photons can have small spin while gamma rays photons will have a spin similar to that of the electron or the positron.
The neutrino created in that process will have neglihible spin.

The way you presented it today's model of the process also does not conservates spin! (1/2+1/2 <--> 1+1)

The question is now if for example the spin of gamma rays photons and visible light photons have been verified experimentally...

 

Experiment show that all photons have spin one (no matter their energy) and all neutrino have spin 1/2
Your theory goes against experiment

 

Well, I edited the post a little and the main point is that current theories predict the creation of two opposite photons what also does not verify the conservation of spins.
( 1/2+1/2 <--> 1+1 )

The spin is the "magnetic dipole" of the particles, is related to their magnetic fields. The new theories give a structure for that magnetic field of the particles. Actually I'm not sure about the NET magnetic dipole. It seems to me that I would need algoritms for computer simulation and calculation of them...
May be as the lenght augment while the fields get weaker there is a kind of compensation and the net dipoles mantain constant... and in this way the theory is not invalidated...

I think that many computational simulations and calculations must be done to verify many things. May be also new experiments are needed.

I cannot do that.

 

As I told you earlier, you should study quantum mechanics. The total spin (with no orbital angular momentum) of two spin 1/2 particles can be 0 or 1, the total spin of two spin 1 particles can be 0,1 or 2 so that the total spin is conserved when a pair of positron - electron anihilates into 2 photons.

 

I really like four-vectors. It makes SR quite easy to handle. Here I will use the following convention: four-vectors x, regular vectors x, and scalars x. With classical physics space and time are completely independent so you can write spatial vectors as r=(x,y,z). In SR space and time are not completely independent and instead we have spacetime that we can write as s=(ct,r)=(ct,x,y,z). The ct component is called the timelike part and the (x,y,z) part is called the spacelike part. For convenience I will use units where c=1 and I won't explicitly write c explicitly any more, but c is present wherever needed to make the units correct.

So for three-vectors we have a scalar product defined as a.b = xa xb + ya yb + za zb. Similarly, for four-vectors we have a scalar product defined as a.b = ta tb - ra.rb, which is invariant under the Lorentz transform. The norm of a three-vector is |a|²=a.a and similarly the norm of a four-vector |a|²=a.a.

The basic physical quantities that you are familiar with from classical physics have their analogues in four-vectors. So, if you have a four-vector s = (t,x,y,z) then the (proper) time derivative of s is the four-velocity v = ds/dτ = (γ,γv). Note that |v|=c. The (rest) mass times the four-velocity is the four momentum p = mv = (E,p). Note that |p|=m so the conservation of the four-momentum encompasses the classical conservation of momentum, energy, and mass. The wave four-vector is defined as k=(ω,k) where k is the classical wave vector and a sine wave can be written sin(ωt-k.r). So the general deBroglie relation is p=hk or (E,p)=h(ω,k) which encompasses both the classical Planck and deBroglie relations.

Hope this helps.

-Dale

 

1100f,
I think that the conservation of spins is not always verified in current theories and I don't know if it is a necessary condition as the conservation of energy.
For example in the photoelectric effect a photon is created without any annihilation of particles and then a spin of 1 was created from no spin!...

 

1100f,
I was thinking about maxwell Equations and the electromagnetic waves and I agree that your reasoning is right. The points in the space actually are at fixed positions, the factor "s" does not apply and the fields not necessary become null.

So I developed a new demonstration on that actually electromagnetic waves do not exist. The famous derivation of them fro Maxwell Equations is flawed because of a missing step!

The reasoning is as follows:

""The deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step!

Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction!

The solution for the electric and magnetic fields is an infinite plane with the same (constant), field parallel to the plane, in the entire plane! The solution to this source is just impossible. There's no source of field possible to generate that kind of fields!

Then it can be stated that "electromagnetic waves" cannot exist.""


I have entered this reasoning in the "Detected errors in the last version" and "New evidence" parts of the main page.

Thank you, you inspired me to deduce that!

 

Dalespam,

I'm still mlearning about four-vectors but let me point some observations:
1) It seems you took what you called the "general De Broglie relation" from "under your arm" without being developed from known relativistic relationships.
2) Your definition of the four-momentum differs from that at wikipedia ("four vector" ).
At wikipedia P = (mc, p) and it is obvious that mc is not E as you put in the four-vector of P (E=mc2!).
3) You mention that |v|=c but this is valid for photons only!!!
4) The internal product of four-vectors are Lorentz-invariant but what does the internal product of your k=(w,k) vector means?
I don't understand because it seems to not leave to a known relation of the waves!

As I said before, I find really strange that the link at wikipedia that treats about four vectors reachs (at the end) the classic De Broglie relation without mentioning it has an appropiate four-vector formulation!

There is something very strange in all this...

 

I am sorry that you still don't understand the meaning of the solution of a differential equation. let me show you the simplest one: dy(x)/dx = 0. Yhere is an infinite number of solutions to this equation. However if you give the condition that at x = 3, y= 5 then you rule out all the solutions that do not fulfill this condition.
The same is for the Maxwellw's equation. If all space is empty, then of course the solution to Maxwell's equation will be that there are no waves, no em field. However if you have charges that are accelerating somewhere in space, then the solution will be yhat there are em waves.

BTW, the solution to the wave equation is not only plane waves. The solution depends on the initial and boundary conditions.
So that when you say that the solutions are infinite plane waves, you show again that you realy don't understand what you are talking about

 

Actually the photon isn't created nor is an electron for that matter. The energy from a high enough frequency photon hitting a semiconductor moves an electron up to higher orbits until it escapes. Nothing is created.

 

imaplanck,
But then waht happens to that photon that disappears in the photoelectric absorption and just appears in the photoelectric emission?
How is that in the current theories? where the spin goes/come from?