This paper looks a bit sketchy.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Menaus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bit Paper
AI Thread Summary
The paper "Instantaneous Interaction between Charged Particles" by Wolfgang Engelhardt raises concerns regarding its adherence to Special Relativity and the quality of its peer review process. Critics argue that the paper's claims about Maxwell's equations and instantaneous force propagation are likely incorrect and poorly articulated. The equations presented do not conform to standard wave equations, complicating the interpretation of electromagnetic wave propagation. Additionally, the examples provided do not substantiate the author's assertions, as they misinterpret the nature of fields in relation to charge and current distributions. Overall, the paper lacks credibility, particularly due to its reliance on unverified experimental evidence.
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.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top