This paper looks a bit sketchy.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Menaus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bit Paper
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the paper "Instantaneous Interaction between Charged Particles" by Wolfgang Engelhardt, focusing on its peer review process, its adherence to established physical theories, and the validity of its claims regarding electromagnetic interactions. Participants express concerns about the paper's implications for Special Relativity and its overall credibility.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the peer review process of the paper and its suitability for discussion within the forum.
  • Concerns are raised about the paper's exposition, particularly the assertion that Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy imply instantaneous force propagation, which is viewed as likely incorrect.
  • One participant notes that the equations presented in the paper do not conform to standard wave equations, suggesting a misinterpretation of electromagnetic wave propagation.
  • Another participant highlights that the examples provided in the paper do not substantiate the author's claims, emphasizing that the instantaneous treatment of the field is not due to actual instantaneous propagation but rather due to negligible differences in specific scenarios.
  • A later reply points out that the paper cites another work as experimental evidence, which itself has not been published, raising further doubts about the reliability of the claims made in Engelhardt's paper.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the paper's validity and its implications for established physics, indicating a lack of consensus on its claims and the appropriateness of its publication.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the paper's claims may depend on specific interpretations of electromagnetic theory and the definitions of terms used, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

Menaus
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511172v2

"Instantaneous Interaction between Charged Particles" by Wolfgang Engelhardt

Submitted to Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie

Has this paper undergone a good process of peer review? It seems in violation of Special Relativity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Even if it does get published, I wouldn't call the Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie a research journal. As it stands, I think this article doesn't meet the criteria for discussion on PF.
 
The paper is careless in its exposition. The idea that Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy require instantaneous propagation of force is most probably wrong.

The equations in (1) are not standard wave equations with charge and current source terms, but instead some part of the field is used as a source. Then the source is distributed in the whole space and this precludes simple interpretation of ##E_w## as EM wave propagating with speed ##c## from charged body.

The examples with the charge and current loop do not support author's claim in any way. The field is often treated as instantaneous function of charge and current distribution not because the field propagates instantaneously, but because the difference from the correct retarded field is negligible for slowly oscillating currents.
 
Hmmm... This article cites a paper as experimental evidence.

"Experimental Evidence on Non-Applicability of the Standard Retardation Condition to Bound Magnetic Fields and on New Generalized Biot-Savart Law"

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601084

I has not been published by anyone.

This is a larger one, i'll have to look at it later.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K