Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New Field Theory.

  1. Dec 1, 2003 #1
    I have been cudgeling my brains in a hitherto futile endeavour to discover what exactly there was about “New Field Theory “ or “Aumic” theory as enumerated at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/natureoflight that excited such deep animosity , antipathy and mistrust amongst physicists . Eventually I came to the conclusion that the explanation for this animosity lay in the fact that it would be as impossible to explain New Field Theory in the complex mathematical terms required by the standard model of the Quantum Field theory as it would be for proponents of Quantum Field Theory to explain their theory in terms of the tautology of simple English phraseology . For instance it would be impossible to explain New Field Theory in terms of Probability Laws , for the simple fact that the laws of probability , at least as applied to the field are extraneous in NFT , each photon is exactly where it is supposed to be and to try to explain in terms of probability where they might be would be a futile exercise. Similarly NFT does not require the complex equations of Schrodinger’s standing wave theory for the reason that , at least as applied to the EM field , there are no standing waves. Again the abstruse mathematics of the perturbation theory has no bearing in NFT for the reason that propagation of the electromagnetic field in NFT is a simple mechanical construct wherein photons interlock and move in the direction of propagation , a phenomenon that at the most might call for some sort of vector algebra but nothing as complicated as perturbation theory. Yet in spite of all this NFT does work , it offers an accurate and plausible explanation of electromagnetic phenomenon and does so in a more plausible fashion than Quantum electrodynamics. Using NFT , brings about a unification of the phenomena of electricity and electromagnetism which in Quantum theory has been presented in so chopped up and divisive a form. NFT predicts and accurately explains , in a mathematically verifiable form , the difference between reactive and radiative electromagnetic fields and does so in a much more cogent and acceptable manner than QFT. While Quantum theory depends on the existence of inuitive or super luminal communication of information NFT successfully explains the same phenomenon in terms of empirical events. Django
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2003 #2

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So? Deterministic theories can be expressed mathematcally too, you know. The theories of Newton and Maxwell are just such examples. So why is it impossible to express NFT mathematically? Indeed, how can one even claim to have a "field theory" without field equations?


    Schrodinger's theory does not describe standing EM waves. Maxwell's theory does that. And if you think there is no such thing as a standing EM wave, then you need to do a basic undergraduate laboratory experiment with waveguides to get a bit of education on the matter.

    Again: What?

    The above was supposed to be in connection with your remark on Schrodinger, but as I mentioned that theory does not even attempt to account for EM fields. So let's assume that you meant Maxwell instead of Schrodinger. In that case, the above remark still carries no force, because Maxwell does not treat standing EM waves perturbatively.

    Since there is no field equation, there is no sense in which NFT can be said to "work" at all.


    Quantum theory does not unify the electric and magnetic fields at all, and neither does it claim to. Maxwell's theory does that, and it does so quite elegantly.

    Where is the field equation?

    Again: What?

    QFT does not speak of electromagnetic fields at all! The field concept is an artifact of the Maxwell theory. Also, if you are going to claim that any theory is better than either Maxwell or QFT, you have to show that it is more accurate in all its predictions. You certainly cannot do that without a field equation.

    Quantum mechanics has that problem, but not quantum field theory. QFT is local by construction.

    Again: Without a field equation, this claim is empty.
  4. Dec 1, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How on earth can the maximum wavelength of a photon as 10-6be an axiom of any theory?!!!!!

    That's almost into the range of visible light
  5. Dec 2, 2003 #4
    Re; New Field Theory

    I seem to have been misquoted or misunderstood since what I had said was in effect that “ it would be impossible to explain New Field Theory in the complex mathematical terms required by the standard model of the Quantum Field theory…” the key term being “complex mathematical terms “.This does not mean that NFT cannot be explained in mathematical terms , far from it. More of this later .
    To digress for a moment , and to turn the question around as it were , would it be possible to explain Quantum Field Theory in terms understandable in plain English ? An explanation of QFT in plain English , (necessarily of a brief nature ) would go something like this. It can be divided into two parts (a) current flow in a conductor (b) electromagnetic fields resulting from the moving charge manifested outside the wire. With regard to (a) When a current flows through a wire the electrons in the wire start to move , the spin on these accelerated electrons sets up an electromagnetic wave , which manifests itself outside the wire. With regard to (b) the whole of space is permeated by Electromagnetic radiation made up of very low energy and manifested as virtual photons . This maybe better explained as follows . A photon is transformed into a virtual electron-positron pair , which is annihilated and transformed again into a photon. The members of this pair during their lifetime may obviously generate virtual photons and , consequently , new virtual electron-positron pairs, and so on. As a result of this , the vacuum turns out to be not ”empty” but “filled” with virtual electric charges which must exercise a screening effect on external (real) charges. In other words EMR propagates through space via multiple interactions with “virtual “ particles. Yet how does this explain how the “virtual” electron-positron pair “know “ what energy of photon to produce , and remember there are trillions of possible photon values ? It is in this sense that I had stated that QM is intuitive since it depends on transient “virtual” particles which even after going through the process of creation and annihilation , which in turn must entail certain minimum energies , being able to intuitively guess what energy of photon to produce , even if the statement is taken at face value it still implies some sort of superluminal or otherworldly type of communication since it involves interactions between matter and anti-matter. Again to attribute the flow of electrical energy to electrons in a conductor is in itself controversial. To start with electrons must propagate inside a conductor in a neutral environment i.e there can never be an excess of electrons in the conductor , secondly the drift velocity of electrons is on the order of fractions of a millimetre a second , thirdly the electrons are separated from each other by a 100,000 times their diameter , which on a practical scale would be like one billiard ball trying to hit another billiard ball placed somewhere on the circumference of a circle 6 Kms away , it does not seem to be a practical proposition. What then is the alternative ? If a mathematical argument is to be made for NFT it is necessary to know first what leads upto NFT , it would be completely pointless to start spouting mathematical definitions without at least some idea being given of what one has in mind. A good place to start would be with the structure of the photon , this is an area which has been largely ignored by quantum theory , the attempts which have been made are vestigal and hardly satisfactory. To see what NFT visualizes about the physical structure of the photon see http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/photonstructure.html The physical structure attributed to the photon in the above link is the key to understanding NFT , almost all of the theories in NFT are based upon this particular structure for the photon. A brief account of how this results in fields can be found at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id3.html which also describes how these fields are formed and how the energy of the field can be calculated. More mathematical aspects will be put forward later. Incidentally NFT offers an almost unassailable explanation for the field around a magnet.
  6. Dec 3, 2003 #5

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re; New Field Theory

    That is just a special case of the question, "Why does the universe conserve energy?"

    No one knows.

    No, conservation of energy does not imply nonlocality.

    I think your idea on this is exactly backwards. It is completely pointless to spout off paragraph upon paragraph without having everything rigorously defined and quantified. That is the only way one can validly draw testable conclusions from the theory.

    In QFT, photons are fundamental. I am at a complete loss for what you mean by "vestical and hardly satisfactory" attempts to determine the structure of the photon!

    If that is the key, then it seems I will not be understanding NFT anytime soon, because that link is devoid of substance.

    LOL, if you say so.

    Hopefully the mathematical aspects you will put forward later will include dynamical field equations from which everything else can be calculated, because there is literally nothing to go on in those links you provided.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: New Field Theory.
  1. New Field Theory (Replies: 55)

  2. New Field Theory (Replies: 3)

  3. New theory? (Replies: 3)

  4. New theory of gravity? (Replies: 3)

  5. New physics theory? (Replies: 1)