Fields *having* energy is problematic -- at least if you treat electrons and protons as point charges. Total field energy of a point electron is infinite. I've long wondered what would happen if you treated electrons and protons as having finite size, with the size set to make the total field energy such as to give electrons and protons their observed masses.
But I have never experienced the leisure of the theory class required to do the deep dive.
Looking forward to your working out of such contradictions.
Absolutely. Fields *guiding* energy makes much more sense than fields *having* energy. If you look at an electron and you try to accelerate it, you find a bubble around it on which the Poynting vector goes to zero. The radius of that bubble is the classical electron radius - the same distance outside of which the integrated field energy is the electron mass.
I have downloaded your paper. Might take me a while to finish it. My E&M skills have three decades of rust to shake off.
BTW, your complaints about J.D. Jackson's text (in your author's intro) brought back memories. My classmates and I were making similar complaints back in the day. I lived in a low signal area when I was in high school. I thought I would be able to make a better TV antenna after taking graduate level E&M. But nooooooooooooooooo!
I bought a copy of Stratton when it came back into print a few years back. Reading it is on my bucket list. I might have to add your book on high bandwidth antennae.
It took me another couple years of studying "real" EM past Jackson before I was able to design better antennas. My UWB Antenna textbook is a good place to go if you want the serious theory and analysis. Fields & Energy is going to be a much more simple and straightforward explanation of how EM works. Even my Phil Trans paper doesn't go much beyond a bit of vector algebra. Thanks for your interest and for looking into what I have to share more deeply.
I always enjoyed the somewhat apocryphal story of a senior graduate student at my university who used to occupy my office, when working Jackson problems late at night he would pitch the book as far down the hallway as he could when frustrated. Ultimately, he would retrieve the book and continue. I rarely found "real world" electromagnetics problems presented in Jackson and was frustrated by that. The pitching impulse is real.
Fields *having* energy is problematic -- at least if you treat electrons and protons as point charges. Total field energy of a point electron is infinite. I've long wondered what would happen if you treated electrons and protons as having finite size, with the size set to make the total field energy such as to give electrons and protons their observed masses.
But I have never experienced the leisure of the theory class required to do the deep dive.
Looking forward to your working out of such contradictions.
Absolutely. Fields *guiding* energy makes much more sense than fields *having* energy. If you look at an electron and you try to accelerate it, you find a bubble around it on which the Poynting vector goes to zero. The radius of that bubble is the classical electron radius - the same distance outside of which the integrated field energy is the electron mass.
It's as if an electron is a hole in space.
I touch on that here: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0453
I do like the idea Alexander Unzicker has been exploring lately about particles being "defects" in space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgh4hkfKnoo
I have downloaded your paper. Might take me a while to finish it. My E&M skills have three decades of rust to shake off.
BTW, your complaints about J.D. Jackson's text (in your author's intro) brought back memories. My classmates and I were making similar complaints back in the day. I lived in a low signal area when I was in high school. I thought I would be able to make a better TV antenna after taking graduate level E&M. But nooooooooooooooooo!
I bought a copy of Stratton when it came back into print a few years back. Reading it is on my bucket list. I might have to add your book on high bandwidth antennae.
It took me another couple years of studying "real" EM past Jackson before I was able to design better antennas. My UWB Antenna textbook is a good place to go if you want the serious theory and analysis. Fields & Energy is going to be a much more simple and straightforward explanation of how EM works. Even my Phil Trans paper doesn't go much beyond a bit of vector algebra. Thanks for your interest and for looking into what I have to share more deeply.
I always enjoyed the somewhat apocryphal story of a senior graduate student at my university who used to occupy my office, when working Jackson problems late at night he would pitch the book as far down the hallway as he could when frustrated. Ultimately, he would retrieve the book and continue. I rarely found "real world" electromagnetics problems presented in Jackson and was frustrated by that. The pitching impulse is real.