I stumbled upon this substack and began to binge-skim it. You probably heard before and gotten used to suspicions of quackery so as not to take offence at them anymore. In any case, based on the skimming I have done, this is not the usual quackjob because of the claimed compatibility of your new ideas with known experiments.
But the calculation beast must be sated.
Reading through the various chapters of physics history is nice, but because this claims to be a presentation of new physics ideas, physicists would, rightly I think, demand where is the math of those new ideas.
It may seem that, since the ideas work out to the same experimental consequences, there is nothing interesting for a mathematical formulation of them to show. But I think there is, so here is a series of questions.
[Basic question] Using this interpretation of electromagnetism, what are the correspondents to the equations for radiation reaction forces (aka Abraham-Lorentz[-Dirac] forces) that it would formulate? Are the paradoxical solutions to classical ALD equations, such as runaway solutions, NOT solutions of the reformulated equations? Are experimentally/practically relevant solutions to classical ALD equations ALSO solutions of the reformulated equations? What is the domain in which the reformulated equations are valid (do they require small charges and/or velocities or the like)?
I have just encountered you and your work and it's been long since I read anything about electromagnetism, so it may well be that you have a paper out addressing the basic question above.
Supposing however that this is not yet the case, would the answer to the basic question be forthcoming at some point in the book?
Or, would someone who finishes the book at least be able to undertake answering the basic question for themselves? I ask this final question because it does not seem that the content is very mathematical, and thus it is hard to see how to go about converting
"Electromagnetism works through the agency of fields: non-local phenomena that behave like waves. Those fields guide the flow of energy. In the quantum limit, energy behaves as particles: point-like concentrations of mass and energy."
to a reformulation of radiation reaction force equations.
I do apologize for the implication of quackery. In my defense, from the wisdom of Warhammer 40K, "an open mind is like a fortress unguarded", and there is only so much time in the day etc. You look like you could be on to something, but that does not mean it is worth to go through hundreds of pages to find out. Give me some hope here.
The fundamental issue is that my approach to Fields & Energy is exactly the Maxwellian approach, so there's usually no difference in the mathematical description. The difference arises when you approach a problem in Maxwellian electrodynamics from wrong premises. The "charges emit photons" model is the premise of radiation reaction, and that premise is wrong. It's not that there's a better, correct formula to describe it. It's that radiation reaction is asking an invalid question - a question you would know better than to ask if you were following my Fields & Energy model. I go into that in this post which you may not have seen yet: https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/462-the-accelerating-charge-model
I will need some time to read and digest the linked to pieces.
I agree that if one can show that a conceptual apparatus prevents asking invalid questions, then that is an argument in favor of that conceptual apparatus, even if it otherwise behaves the same as another such conceptualization.
However, even if the question as stated may be invalid, *something* about it is worth addressing because there is some observable phenomenon that the question points to. Radiation reaction, or something we at least think is radiation reaction, is observable in some settings, apparently. And something that looks a lot like radiation produced by accelerating charges is very much observable in particle accelerators.
Nor were those observations surprising, AFAIK, as there is some derivation from Maxwell's equations, at least as usually understood, to the conclusion that an accelerated electrical charge will produce electromagnetic waves.
Oh, I'm sure he's been thoroughly deboonked with much complicated maths and "relativistic frame jump theory" and handwaving etc. etc. just look at the bottom of his Wikipedia entry they're right there /sarc/.
This is one of those "Who you gonna believe? Us, or your lyin' eyes?" moments.
The problem is I'm just smart enough to understand by looking at the solar system geometrically and understanding why gravity has to be either instantaneous, or operating at a huge multiple of C, or some other force other than attraction (it's end result is indistinguishable from (near?)instantaneous attraction, but it's actual mechanism is something else), but not nearly smart enough to work through the various equations to defend VanFlandern's paper (and what's obviously true).
There's still a mountain of bullshit in physics/astrophysics/general science which needs slogged through, (e.g. "dark matter" is still seriously treated as a thing, when the Electric Universe theorists have shown it's far more likely "dark matter" is plasma). This is why I'm so excited for your book, because it looks like you're going to bulldoze some traincars of bullshit off the mountain.
Most science fetishists don't grasp that Science is always uncertain or completely in the dark about some aspects of Reality, or we wouldn't continue to investigate it. The assumption that Science is always "right" is nonsensical, as perusal of the history of Science demonstrates again and again. The fetishists worship at the feet of a toolbox rather than some Dephi-like oracle as they imagine.
Greetings.
I stumbled upon this substack and began to binge-skim it. You probably heard before and gotten used to suspicions of quackery so as not to take offence at them anymore. In any case, based on the skimming I have done, this is not the usual quackjob because of the claimed compatibility of your new ideas with known experiments.
But the calculation beast must be sated.
Reading through the various chapters of physics history is nice, but because this claims to be a presentation of new physics ideas, physicists would, rightly I think, demand where is the math of those new ideas.
It may seem that, since the ideas work out to the same experimental consequences, there is nothing interesting for a mathematical formulation of them to show. But I think there is, so here is a series of questions.
[Basic question] Using this interpretation of electromagnetism, what are the correspondents to the equations for radiation reaction forces (aka Abraham-Lorentz[-Dirac] forces) that it would formulate? Are the paradoxical solutions to classical ALD equations, such as runaway solutions, NOT solutions of the reformulated equations? Are experimentally/practically relevant solutions to classical ALD equations ALSO solutions of the reformulated equations? What is the domain in which the reformulated equations are valid (do they require small charges and/or velocities or the like)?
I have just encountered you and your work and it's been long since I read anything about electromagnetism, so it may well be that you have a paper out addressing the basic question above.
Supposing however that this is not yet the case, would the answer to the basic question be forthcoming at some point in the book?
Or, would someone who finishes the book at least be able to undertake answering the basic question for themselves? I ask this final question because it does not seem that the content is very mathematical, and thus it is hard to see how to go about converting
"Electromagnetism works through the agency of fields: non-local phenomena that behave like waves. Those fields guide the flow of energy. In the quantum limit, energy behaves as particles: point-like concentrations of mass and energy."
to a reformulation of radiation reaction force equations.
I do apologize for the implication of quackery. In my defense, from the wisdom of Warhammer 40K, "an open mind is like a fortress unguarded", and there is only so much time in the day etc. You look like you could be on to something, but that does not mean it is worth to go through hundreds of pages to find out. Give me some hope here.
The fundamental issue is that my approach to Fields & Energy is exactly the Maxwellian approach, so there's usually no difference in the mathematical description. The difference arises when you approach a problem in Maxwellian electrodynamics from wrong premises. The "charges emit photons" model is the premise of radiation reaction, and that premise is wrong. It's not that there's a better, correct formula to describe it. It's that radiation reaction is asking an invalid question - a question you would know better than to ask if you were following my Fields & Energy model. I go into that in this post which you may not have seen yet: https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/462-the-accelerating-charge-model
You'll also find the example of the exponentially decaying dipole, here, an example that defies explanation from the "charges emit photons" perspective: https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/the-right-hand-rule-for-radiation
I will need some time to read and digest the linked to pieces.
I agree that if one can show that a conceptual apparatus prevents asking invalid questions, then that is an argument in favor of that conceptual apparatus, even if it otherwise behaves the same as another such conceptualization.
However, even if the question as stated may be invalid, *something* about it is worth addressing because there is some observable phenomenon that the question points to. Radiation reaction, or something we at least think is radiation reaction, is observable in some settings, apparently. And something that looks a lot like radiation produced by accelerating charges is very much observable in particle accelerators.
Nor were those observations surprising, AFAIK, as there is some derivation from Maxwell's equations, at least as usually understood, to the conclusion that an accelerated electrical charge will produce electromagnetic waves.
Sure. I have the radiation reaction part worked out and can share that. I’ll pull that together.
+1
Can't wait to read the rest.
Y'all will probably enjoy this from the late great Tom VanFlandern
https://metaresearch.org/cosmology/cosmology2/the-speed-of-gravity-what-the-experiments-say
Here's someone who disagrees. Haven't had a chance to review it yet.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
Oh, I'm sure he's been thoroughly deboonked with much complicated maths and "relativistic frame jump theory" and handwaving etc. etc. just look at the bottom of his Wikipedia entry they're right there /sarc/.
This is one of those "Who you gonna believe? Us, or your lyin' eyes?" moments.
The problem is I'm just smart enough to understand by looking at the solar system geometrically and understanding why gravity has to be either instantaneous, or operating at a huge multiple of C, or some other force other than attraction (it's end result is indistinguishable from (near?)instantaneous attraction, but it's actual mechanism is something else), but not nearly smart enough to work through the various equations to defend VanFlandern's paper (and what's obviously true).
There's still a mountain of bullshit in physics/astrophysics/general science which needs slogged through, (e.g. "dark matter" is still seriously treated as a thing, when the Electric Universe theorists have shown it's far more likely "dark matter" is plasma). This is why I'm so excited for your book, because it looks like you're going to bulldoze some traincars of bullshit off the mountain.
I enjoyed it, indeed! Thanks for sharing.
I remember playing with iron fillings when I was a kid. It was fascinating to watch them depict a magnetic field.
Following intently, and curious about how much there is for me to unlearn, as well as to discover. Regardless, this will be fun!
It seems like just about everything we know is wrong!
Most science fetishists don't grasp that Science is always uncertain or completely in the dark about some aspects of Reality, or we wouldn't continue to investigate it. The assumption that Science is always "right" is nonsensical, as perusal of the history of Science demonstrates again and again. The fetishists worship at the feet of a toolbox rather than some Dephi-like oracle as they imagine.
With many institutions of " Higher Learning " students are told what to think not HOW to think, akin to " Shut up and Calculate."