New Field Theory: Similarities & Differences

[McQueen]

There are more similarities between New Field Theory as posted at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html (this might be long winded but is only understood if read in full ) and quantum theory than there are differences. The differences where they do exist seem to be infinitesimal yet when added up amount to two completely different theories. Beginning with the approach to electromagnetic fields underlying the two theories , quantum theory uses a kind of reverse engineering approach to the theory of electromagnetic radiation , working backwards from the big bang and its probable effects , while New Field Theory , confronts electromagnetic phenomenon from observed effects and from properties of the photon , apart from this basic difference there is agreement over almost everything else. Both theories agree that light and energy are delivered in fixed quanta , both theories agree that there are no classical fields but only interaction between the particles making up the field. Yet almost inexplicably , it is precisely at this point that differences start to occur. Quantum theory states that the electromagnetic field is the result of the vibration of electrons and ions in the grid lattice of the conductor. A cursory examination of this point of view would seem to suggest that it is at odds with the quantum theory statement that there are no fields , yet closer observation shows that this is explained by the quantum theory statement that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons but almost immediately a contradiction is seen to exist when we are told that these virtual photons arise out of the energy of the electromagnetic field , since the minimum energy needed for an energy to matter transformation is about 1.2 MeV , yet the fields we are dealing with have energies of less than 1eV , this hardly seems enough to merit even transformation to virtual matter or virtual photons. Take next the propagation of electrical energy within a conductor , quantum theory expressly forbids the emission or absorption of photons by a free electron , yet if the simple perturbation theory underlying the propagation of electrical energy as explained by quantum is to be atken at face value is to be accepted , then we have to presume that energy is transferred from electron to electron via virtual photons meaning that the interaction has to take place within a period of about 10 ^{-15 secs.} . However we find that even if we were to substitute real photons for virtual photons , the transaction would take place within this limit or at approximately a pico pico second ( i.e the time taken for a photon to travel 10 ^-8 m. between electrons ) , what is important is that this rate of transaction is continued , which according to New Field Theory , is achieved by the photons returning to the electron.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The reason of virtual photons is their fleeting existence.
The time factor of the conjugate variables of quantum mechanics.

Photons (real or virtual) cannot interact among themselves.

Photon cannot take the place of interactions by fermions. Fermions are spin halves and photon are of integral spin. But a pair of electrons act like a bosonic particle in the theory of superconductivity. This is the closest that a fermion ever come to becoming a boson. The new science of Bose-Einstein condensation is studying this type of matter (fermion acts like boson).

 

[McQueen]

<----- The reason of virtual photons is their fleeting existence.
The time factor of the conjugate variables of quantum mechanics.

Photons (real or virtual) cannot interact among themselves.

Photon cannot take the place of interactions by fermions.---->

I can't really see the point that you are trying to make , what kind of interactions are you referring to ?

 

[Antonio Lao]

From the conclusions of New Field Theory.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Perhaps I should make clear what I mean by interaction.

Maxwell's equations of electromagnetic field are the interaction of electric and magnetic field.

Newton's law of universal gravitation is the interaction between matter (inertial mass and gravitational mass). The inertial part is in the 2nd law of motion.

Einstein's Theories of relativity is the interaction of space and time changing the structure of spacetime. Space and time were absolute and independent in Newton's conception.

Quantum Field Theories are the interaction of matter and energy.

These are the currently accepted field theories with a lot of supporting empirical data.

Interaction is used in the sense that two distinct physical concepts are co-dependent not independent.

What is the interaction of the New Field Theory? If it's the same as one of the above then it's not a new theory but a modified version.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio,
(Sorry your second post came while I was trying to answer the first.)
I don’t know if this what you are referring to .The rule is that all particles with half integral spin obey the Fermi_dirac statistics and those with zero or integral spin obey the Bose-Einstein statistics. In other words , particles with integral or zero spin are bosons , and those with half integral spin are fermions. The difference between the behaviour of bosons and that of fermions is explained by the fact that the latter are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle while the former are not. This ban prohibits fermions from gathering together in one state.
As regards the second post , the point of view of New Field Theory is that , there are no independent electric or magnetic fields ields there are only electromagnetic fields

 

[Antonio Lao]

The vacuum field is the only source-free field independent of electric and magnetic field.

The divergence of electric field is zero in vacuum.
The divergence of magnetic field is zero in vacuum.

The New Field Theory can be said to be a theory of the vaccum.

At the current technology, there is still no way that anyone knows how to/can harness the infinite energy of the vaccum.

 

[McQueen]

<---The New Field Theory can be said to be a theory of the vaccum.-->

The New Field Theory concept of the vacuum is different from the standard theory. I would like to ask you a question. How does electrical energy flow in a conductor ? I am not talking about the material from which the conductor is made but about the actual process by which energy is transmitted through the conductor.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Solid state physics explained that conduction electrons carry the electrical energy. In metals, these are the valence electrons of the outer shell of the metallic atoms.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio Lao
The drift velocity of electrons under the influence of a potential difference is about 10-3 cm sec . therefore the energy given to an electron by the electric field by 100 volts applied to a 1 meter length copper wire would be on the order of W=eEd = 100 volts x 40 nm = 0.000004 eV. How does this amount of energy account for the flow of current in terms of amperes , how do the electrons suddenly manage to gain so much energy ? Further how is energy transferred from electron to electron , is energy transferred via an electric field or is it transferred by virtual photons ? Is energy transferred from electron to electron by a field , when fields are not supposed to exist according to QM , if it is an approximation of a field due to the long wave-length of the photons involved , how do electrons with a radius of 10 -13 m. emit wave lengths of several thousand metres and how long does it take them to emit these wave-lengths ? How again is it possible for most of the electrical energy to reside in the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor ? The answers to these questions is not clear. If you can answer these questions , it would go a long way towards showing validating QM .

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

Before I reply your last post, I am going to do some calculations.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I have not yet do my own calculations but there is one by Halliday and Resnick in Physics 3rd ed Part 2 extended version, page 678. The average drift velocity is 3.6 \times 10^{-2} cm/s.

But the average drift velocity cannot be used to calculate the energy source of the conducting electrons. For one thing, average implies a statistical nature and requires a probabilitic interpretation as done in quantum mechanics by the wave function. The electrical energy equation is not dependent on the average drift velocity. Your "d" in W=eEd is the mean free path of collision between electrons and the lattice of the conductor in a mean free time. All these are random events that must take the probability theory in question. The drift velocity does have a maximum of 10^8 cm/s and a minimum of zero between each collision.

Halliday and Resnick also noted the fact that "the drift speed of electrons must not be confused with the speed at which changes in the electric field configuration travel along wires, a speed which approaches that of light. When we apply a pressure to one end of a long water-filled garden hose, a pressure wave travels rapidly along the hose. The speed at which water moves through the hose is much lower, however."

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
Your post is interesting and informative , I appreciate your point of view . It would be surprising if a credible attempt had not been made to explain such an important subject as electricity . Coming back to your statement . What is the behaviour of a truly free electron ? Current flows through the metal if a potential difference is applied to the ends of the conductor ; this potential difference produces an electric field in the metal . We assume that this field equals 1 V/cm. Therefore force eE is applied to each electron . and the acceleration w = eE/m. It can readily be found that an electron traveling at this acceleration over a distance of 1 cm gains a velocity of about 10 8 cm/sec. This is nothing like the drift velocity of electrons because they have to follow the mean free path which is about 10 -8 cm. The mean free path does not correspond to the statistics as you have given them , by this I mean that it is not a question of there being say a certain number of paths available to the electron which are 1 cm in length and others which are 10 -8 m , no the mean free path describes exactly what it is said to describe namely , that the mean free path is roughly equal to 10 -8 m, some paths maybe a few nanometres longer and others a few nanometers shorter . Does this make a difference and what does imply. It implies exactly what had been said in my earlier post namely that the mean drift velocity of electrons has to be about 10 -3 cm or as you had calculated (and this is very near the maximum )10 -2 cms. And this gives an energy of 0.000004 eV . I may be wrong but logically this seems to be the case . In any event this is not the most interesting point , the point is that the electrical energy is established in the conductor at or near to the speed of light , as you had pointed out , this is due to the force of the field , yet QM states that there are no fields and in all cases of transfer of charge , the mediating force is the photon. This is the point that is of interest , does QM claim that the energy is transferred through interaction with virtual photons , since the Pauli exclusion principle forbids photons in the conduction process , or is there some other explanation. If the transaction does take place through virtual photons , how long and with what energy (taking into account HUP) would an electron take to emit a virtual photon with a wave length of several thousand metres ?

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

I would like to reply in pieces instead of one.

1st piece is the following

Your quote:

It would be surprising if a credible attempt had not been made to explain such important subject as electricity.

The theory of electricity remains an open case for research.

The latest is the science of superconductivity. This study includes the classical theory, the quantum theory and also the quantum field theory of electricity.

The monumental works were done originally by Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer. Together, they published in the Physical Review, Volume 108, Number 5 December 1, 1957 a paper on the subject. They shared the 1972 Nobel Prize in physics. But until now superconductivity still is not possible at high temperature. If anyone can make possible high temperature superconductivity, he or she would have closed the book on the science of electricity.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio

<---The theory of electricity remains an open case for research.--->

Leaving aside superconductivity , would you say that the theory we have at present explaining electrical phenomenon is adequate in its explanation of how electrical energy flows through a conductor ?

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by McQueen
This is the point that is of interest , does QM claim that the energy is transferred through interaction with virtual photons , since the Pauli exclusion principle forbids photons in the conduction process , or is there some other explanation. If the transaction does take place through virtual photons , how long and with what energy (taking into account HUP) would an electron take to emit a virtual photon with a wave length of several thousand metres ?

Hate to expand on an already unanswered question, but would these virual photons have mass? Not resting mass, but inertial mass? If so, it seems that they must be traveling in both directions, not just in one. Otherwise a net force would be created in addition to the EM field, which is not the case.

Sorry I've trying really hard to decipher Ed Leedskalnin's journal and apply it to one of the current field theories and this seems like a perfect candidate Of course, the guy is probably just crazy, but he also made a lot of sense in a weird kind of way.

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

When present theory of electricity is used for the generation of power
(rate of change of energy), which I had the notion that its efficiency is less than that of steam engines and compounded by the recent rise in the price of fossil fuel, it is not adequate.

2nd planned piece of my reply is the following:

Your question:

What is the behaviour of a truly free electron?

My answer is that an electron can never truly free. It is always together with other electrons or particles. Physics is not very much interested in understanding just one electron but its interactions with other atoms or particles (electrons, positrons, photons, fermions and bosons).

But when one electron is confined by a Penning trap as that done by Dehmelt to which he co-received with Ramsey the 1989 Nobel Prize in physics, it properties can be accurately determined (for Dehmelt it’s the positron called Priscilla).

______________________________

Pergatory,

I will try to reply your question in a separate post.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Pergatory,

The theory of photon asserts that photons (real or virtual) always have its mass equal to zero. Photons can have various amount of energy depending on its wavelength or frequency.

Field theories are divided into two groups: the vector field and the scalar field.

The vector field (field with a defined nonzero force) comprised: gravity, EM, strong, weak.

The only major scalar field (field with no defined sense of direction) that I am aware of is the Higgs field.

In quantum field theories, each of the vector fields is associated with each own quanta. Graviton for gravity, photon for EM, W's and Z's for weak, and gluons for strong. These are all exchange particles.
Field theories do not defined a velocity of the continuous field itself but only velocity for its quanta.

Ed Leedskalnin attributed a velocity to the magnetic field which he called "magnetic current." This is a misnomer, since there is no detectable magnetic monopole such that the divergence of magnetic field is zero in vacuum and in matter. He could have meant electric current. He also could have meant something about magnetism which we still do not have any understanding of at this time.

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

The concept of mean free path is derived from statistical mechanics succeeding classical mechanics and preceding quantum mechanics.

In a dynamic system of many particles such as electrons or gas molecules there is always the possibility of collision between particles. The average path travels by one particle between collision is defined as the mean free path.

The mean free path is calculated by the following equation:

l_{mfp} = \frac{1}{n\sigma}

n is the number of particle per unit volume.
\sigma is the cross-sectional area of the particles.

Notice that as the number of particles in the system increases, the mean free path becomes smaller and smaller. If there is only one particle in the system, then the mean free path can be the length of the system itself.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The decrease of the mean free path, according to the kinetic theory of heat, decreases the kinetic energy of the system. If the total energy of the system is conserved then the potential energy must increase.

By same analogy, the electric potential energy should increase when the mean free path decreases.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The complete analogy between mechanical and electromagnetic system is the following:

Magnetic energy in the inductance is the kinetic energy in mechanics and has the value

U_L = \frac {1}{2} LI^2

where I is the current flowing thru the inductance L.

Electric energy in the capacitance is the potential energy in mechanics and has the value

U_C = \frac {1}{2} CV^2

where V is the voltage across the condenser C.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The complete force equation is the Lorentz force given by

F = eE + ev \times B

F is the constant electromotive force applied to the system, e is the charge of the electron, E is the electric field, v can be the drift velocity and B is the magnetic field.

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

The story of fiber optics as the transmission of information by light signal can be found inside the book by Jeff Hecht "City of Light" 1999. This is one of the technologies that is responsible for the success of the internet.

If photon only have the ability to transmit useable power (time rate of energy), fiber optics would have replaced the copper transmission lines.

Since energy is directly proportional to frequency, the power-able photons must be of very high frequency or very short wavelength.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio ,
I appreciate the concern you have shown in attempting to explain the flow of electrical energy in an electrical conductor. I have followed your multiple posts with interest. You have pointed out that there are several theories of electricity including the Classical theory , Quantum Theory and the theory dealing with super conductors. The Classical theory can be ruled out , it has been proven to return false values in several vital areas such as the resistance of metals and rate of flow of electrons etc., Discounting the theories for super conductivity , for the moment , that leaves only QM , as the widely accepted theory in general use to explain electricity. OK, so your definition of the mean free path seems to be correct , but I don’t think that your explanation adds much to what has already been said , you state that the mean free path increases with a decrease in temperature and decreases with an increase in temperature , which is also correct. With a flow of electrical current we are not concerned with a decrease in temperature so the statement does not really help in the present instance. Also the increase in potential cannot surely account for the discrepancy between observed velocity of 10 ⁸ m and the actual drift velocity of 10 ^-3 cms. We have seen by the equation which you yourself had posted (p.s how do you manage to write the equations ! ) that the acceleration is equal to electron charge multiplied by potential difference . So the final velocity is dependent on distance and time. Which gives the same answer , namely the drift velocity. I am sorry if this is becoming confusing. I restate the problem , for the purposes of clarity , we know by observation that electrical energy in a conductor is established at or near to the speed of c , the mean velocity of electrons in the conductor is observed to be between 10 ^-3 cms and 10 ^-2 cm/sec . The conclusion has to be that this electrical energy has not much to do with electrons . So we are back at the beginning . What actually takes place ? I have just read your last post , what you are saying in effect is that the sun does not radiate heat ! My point is that if it were possible to generate wave-lengths of 10 ^-6 m. which I postulate is the frequency of the conduction photon , you would definitely get soemthing like the flow of electrical energy , although this would depend on the orientation of the photons.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio ,
Taking a page from your own book , I am also going to attempt a multiple post , this has to do with your post with re: to capacitors , unfortunately I am unable to reproduce the equation you have used ( can we use MS equation 3 ?) . You state that the field around a capacitor is a potential field , but as I have proved by the simple experiment referred to at my site with re: to Maxwell’s equations this is not a correct statement , the field around a capacitor is not an electrostatic field , it is an electromagnetic field !

 

[Antonio Lao]

Regarding your question about writing the equations, I basically follow the instructions given by the 1st thread under General Physics

Sticky: Introducing LaTeX Math Typesetting ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

Reply to your other comments next...

 

[Antonio Lao]

Before I answer some of your questions, I am raising another one:

Since all electrons are identical, how can we be absolutely sure that it is the same electron that travels from one end of the conductor to the other end?

I saw a mechanical model of heavy metal balls suspended by a practically weightless string and the balls are in contact forming a series of balls from one end to the other. If we swing the 1st ball hitting the adjacent ball, the momentum is transferred to the ball at the other end almost instantaneously while the balls in-between have not moved at all. If we multiply the transferred momentum by the almost instantaneous speed we get energy.

 

[McQueen]

Ok even if we accept that , and I'm not saying that it is accepted , we come back to the fact that the available energy is only 0.000004 eV per electron which does not seem to be enough.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I am agreeing with you that the field surrounding the conductor is electromagnetic mainly because of the existence of electric current. If there is no net flow of current, then the Lorentz force contribution from the magnetic induction is zero.

Electric current is dealing with a steady state flow of charge. The charges are not accelerating. If charges are made to accelerate, then electromagnetic radiation is created. This is not the case in conductors. But is the case in all antennas. Transmission lines do not radiate but can affect the reception of radiation such as radio waves causing static.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
Even if what you say is correct and that electrons bump into each other in a kind of Newton's cradle movement , the speed of the electrons is still only
10^-8 m/sec while the speed of light is 3 x 10 ⁸ m/sec. Which leaves us exactly where we started out from !

 

[Antonio Lao]

The small speed of the electron does hold the key to a complete understanding the theory of electricity. Maybe the electron is hanging around looking for a partner because once the electron found a partner (Cooper pairs - a bosonic state) it becomes superconductive.

 

[McQueen]

Right , so there are still no real answers , only speculation. Amazing isn't it !

 

[Antonio Lao]

But the power from electricity is keeping us going. How would we like to go back to candle light and smoke signal?

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
Ofcourse you are right . If we can understand in greater detail how things work , we can also utilise it better.

 

[Antonio Lao]

This is a philosophical question directed more to myself than to this forum:

At what point in the progress of science when its misuse start to emerge?

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

I thought about terminal velocity in the falling of an object in a gravitational field. If we make the analogy for the electrical conduction, the small drift velocity of the electron can be thought of as its almost nearly suspension in an electric field. That is the electron is almost not falling in an electric field.

 

[Antonio Lao]

If the drift velocity of the conducting electron is zero, it is then suspended in the electric field. Reversing the analogy, if the terminal velocity of a falling object in a gravittional field is made to be zero, then the object can be said to be suspended in midair. Maybe this is the subtle point that makes science of aerodynamics possible for the technology of airplanes.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The Earth is known not to have a net effect of a strong electric field except during storms and lightnings but the Earth has a net distribution of a very small magnetic field. The principle behind the working of a magnetic compass. This is supposed to be what got Einstein started in his scientific career. But he, I think, never resolved the mystery of the compass needle.

I am thinking just maybe if we resolve the mystery of the compass needle, we might be able to suspend an object in midair defying the force of gravity. This is pure speculation for now.

 

[Antonio Lao]

This morning, I noted another analogy from GR. The cosmological constant implies a zero drift velocity for the expansion. The more exact analogy is that of a pencil balanced on its point.

If this drift velocity is not zero and also changes with time, then the expansion can accelerate.

 

[Antonio Lao]

By more analogy from electrical conduction, the nonzero drift speed of the universe is the speed of light in vacuum. In a gravitational field, photon take the place of electron in an electric field.

 

[Antonio Lao]

On further speculation could the dimensionless quantity the ratio of electron's drift speed to the speed of light in vacuum be related to other dimensionless quantity such as the fine structure constant.

 

[Antonio Lao]

If the charge to mass ratio of the electron is made to be dimensionless and numerically equal to

1.7 \times 10^{11}

this is approximately 1/5 of the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the electron drift speed.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio

You have gone a long way with me on this , we have argued about how electrical energy is conducted in an electrical conductor , you have during the course of our argument quoted from many books , but in the end had to admit that a consistent theory offering a valid explanation does not seem to exist. What then of my theory ? For instance the theory I have put forward at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html (I quote the URL for the convenience of anyone who might want to look it up ) states that the size or wave-lengths of photons that can be emitted or absorbed by an electron has to be limited to a size of about 10 ^-6 m. and that by thus limiting the maximum size of a photon that an electron could emit , many of the inconsistencies referred to above are solved. That electrical energy is conveyed by photons rather than by electrons would make sense because as I had stated photons are known to convey energy , this would also account for the speed with which an electrical current is established and for the electromagnetic fields which surround a conductor bearing an electrical current. I had also stated that this theory also offers a more acceptable explanation for the phenomenon of magnetism than the present theory of constantly flipping domains. Yet you have ended our discussion in a rather ambiguous way , have you had any new thoughts on the subject , or any comments on my theory.

 

[Antonio Lao]

It so happen that the wavelength of your photon falls within the visible region of the electromagnetic radiation. I am still trying to verify if there is any useable energy from this region.

As for magnetism, the answer to look for is for the question where are the magnetic monopoles.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
The wave-length of the "conduction" photon is on the border between the visible region and the radio region , a frequency of 1 x 10 ¹⁴ would lie well below the visible wave-length , any frequencies lower than this would be composite wave-lengths. The wave-length of the conduction photon is about 1000Nm while the visible low infrared ends at about 800Nm.

 

[Antonio Lao]

This might be the wavelength used in fiber optics. There are more information density than other means of information transmission. But fiber optics cannot be used to power machineries such as dynamos and generators or household appliances.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
I feel that you are greatly mistaken . I will get back with a longer post after a bit of preparation.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I will be waiting patiently for your series of replies. Thanks in advance.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
The situation is not as simple as you seem to imply , my “conduction” photon cannot simply be dismissed as belonging to the visible spectrum. It doesn’t. Let us explore the ways in which it has been possible to determine the wave-lengths of various electromagnetic spectra such as visible light , X-rays and Gamma rays , and radio waves. The method used to determine the wave-lengths of visible light was by use of diffraction grating , similarly to find the wave lengths of X-rays and Gamma rays diffraction through crystals was used and in fact it was this method first though of by Moseley , which is responsible for much of our knowledge of atoms today , lastly for radio waves we have the resonance of a tuned LC circuit. Now consider the problem of a wave length that lies in between the radio wave and the visible light spectrum. You cannot use a diffraction grating to see what the wave-length is for the simple reason that the said frequency does not lie in the visible range , also you cannot use the resonance of an LC circuit for the reason that such LC circuits do not at present exist , lastly you cannot use crystal diffraction for the reason that the concerned wave lengths are longer than the crystal boundaries. So what grounds do you have , taking the above into consideration , to dismiss my hypotheses of a “conduction” photon out of hand. As far as I can see such conditions do not exist , this means that my theory is still valid until proved not to be so.

 

[Antonio Lao]

It's the energy output from the visible region that i am concerned about. This energy, I don't think can be capable of supplying enough electrical energy to run even an ordinary household light bulb of say 25 watts. The light bulb give off the same light wavelength as the input source so to speak. This is just like a perpetual machine that generate something out of nothing. In technology, the input always seem to be larger than the output which makes the efficiency always less than 100%. The heat engine, the electric power plant, etc. The entropy of the system is always increasing.