The stability of matter: is really Maxwell wrong? (part 2).

  • A
  • Thread starter Anonimo
  • Start date
  • #1
8
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

In a previous message I have tried to show that electrical systems exist which do not generate electromagnetic waves with appreciable energy even if such systems have parts in accelerated motion.
Now I add a further example by which the meaning of what I tried to say becomes clearer.
The problem is the following: it is required to investigate the character of the electromagnetic emission resulting from a sum of a great, very great number of sinusoidal plane electromagnetic waves (with same polarization) with same amplitude, same frequency and phase uniformly distributed on the whole 360 degrees angle.
It is not difficult to imagine a physical example of source whose emission is as above described.
This time calculations were made and the result is more than clear: the resulting emission is infinitely smaller in comparison to that we have when all the signals are in phase.
The fact is quite intuitive if we help us with the method of phasors.
So my question is always the same: are we really sure that Maxwell cannot explain the absence of appreciable electromagnetic emission from matter?
Are we really sure that classical theory cannot explain the stability of matter?
I have some doubt.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,737
4,442
So my question is always the same: are we really sure that Maxwell cannot explain the absence of appreciable electromagnetic emission from matter?
Yes.

Are we really sure that classical theory cannot explain the stability of matter?
Yes.
 
  • #3
8
0
Dear Drakkith,
thank you for your response, surely clear and perhaps a little too concise.
 
  • #4
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
28,221
8,024
I have some doubt.
Then you have evidently not acquired the level of background knowledge that would be expected if you are going to start an "A" level (graduate level) thread on this topic. You should certainly be familiar with the classic paper on the topic by Dyson and Lenard:

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1705209

A more recent treatment is Lieb and Seiringer:

http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2013-50-01/S0273-0979-2011-01366-0/S0273-0979-2011-01366-0.pdf

surely clear and perhaps a little too concise.
No, his answer was exactly right for an "A" level thread: the conciseness is a way of conveying to you that you should already have enough background knowledge to fill in the details for yourself. If you don't, you need to fix that before starting another thread on this topic.

Thread closed.
 

Related Threads for: The stability of matter: is really Maxwell wrong? (part 2).

Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
250
Views
41K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
1K
Top