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. Mar 21, 2004 #1
    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 <sup>-15 secs.</sup> . 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 <sup> -8 </sup> 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.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 23, 2004 #2
    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).
  4. Mar 23, 2004 #3
    <----- 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 ?
  5. Mar 23, 2004 #4
    From the conclusions of New Field Theory.
  6. Mar 23, 2004 #5
    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.
  7. Mar 23, 2004 #6
    (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
  8. Mar 23, 2004 #7
    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.
  9. Mar 24, 2004 #8
    <---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.
  10. Mar 24, 2004 #9
    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.
  11. Mar 24, 2004 #10
    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 .
  12. Mar 24, 2004 #11

    Before I reply your last post, I am going to do some calculations.
  13. Mar 24, 2004 #12
    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 [tex]3.6 \times 10^{-2}[/tex] 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 [tex]10^8[/tex] 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."
  14. Mar 25, 2004 #13
    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 ?
  15. Mar 25, 2004 #14

    I would like to reply in pieces instead of one.

    1st piece is the following

    Your quote:

    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.
  16. Mar 25, 2004 #15

    <---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 ?
  17. Mar 25, 2004 #16
    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 travelling 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 :wink: Of course, the guy is probably just crazy, but he also made a lot of sense in a weird kind of way.
  18. Mar 25, 2004 #17

    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).



    I will try to reply your question in a separate post.
  19. Mar 25, 2004 #18

    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.
  20. Mar 25, 2004 #19

    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:

    [tex] l_{mfp} = \frac{1}{n\sigma}[/tex]

    n is the number of particle per unit volume.
    [tex]\sigma[/tex] 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.
  21. Mar 25, 2004 #20
    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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: New Field Theory
  1. New Field Theory. (Replies: 4)

  2. New Field Theory (Replies: 3)

  3. New theory? (Replies: 3)

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

  5. New physics theory? (Replies: 1)