1.4 What’s the Benefit of This New Model?
What insights can this novel theory offer?
Intuition how antennas and electromagnetic radiation work.
A model how previously unappreciated physics gives rise to macroscopic phenomena like standing waves and interference.
A solution to long standing problems like wave-particle duality, vacuum energy, and radiation reaction.
“Wave-particle duality” is the modern answer to the ancient question of whether light is a particle or a wave. Moderns argue light is both – and neither – in a confusing and mutually contradictory mix of wave-like and particle-like properties. The novel theory of this book demonstrates that the answer to “particle or wave” is “particle and wave;” not one entity with two mutually contradictory behaviors, but rather the cooperation of two different entities. Advocates of the “pilot-wave interpretation” of quantum mechanics (to be introduced in Chapter 5) have long argued in favor of a similar conclusion. Now, this novel theory demonstrates that classical electromagnetism demands a similar interpretation, to which quantum mechanics must correspond.
“Vacuum energy” is the concept of an infinite amount of energy residing “in the vacuum.” Modern physicists appeal to this vacuum energy when they need it to make their equations come out right, and then arbitrarily subtract it away so that it doesn’t yield absurd results. “This is just not sensible mathematics,” observed Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (1902–1984), one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics. “Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!” [[i]] Instead, the novel theory of this book demonstrates that because fields and waves are distinct entities, “vacuum fields” need not necessarily possess “vacuum energy.”
“Radiation reaction” is an embarrassing feature of electromagnetism as currently understood from the paradigm of a point charge emitting a point photon. This model demands that the process of radiation from an accelerating charge causes more acceleration… and thus, more radiation… and thus, more acceleration in an exponentially reinforcing runaway fashion.
Figure 1.6 shows a “Feynman diagram” illustrating how an electron (e-) accelerates and emits a photon (“gamma”) of radiation energy. This result violates not only common sense, but also conservation of energy. The novel theory of this book resolves the radiation-reaction paradox, demonstrating that radiation does not react against accelerating charges because accelerating charges are not the source of the radiation energy. Instead, the energy comes from the applied field.
Sadly, it’s not enough to point out that a simple theory solves simple problems that confound conventional thinking. Conventional thinkers, while acknowledging their inability to solve simple problems, will argue that side-stepping profoundly contradictory concepts like wave-particle duality, infinite vacuum energy, and radiation reaction are the price that must be paid to solve more complex problems. Their game plan is to concede failure on simple problems, and then demand calculation of the more complex ones. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the modern electromagnetic theory, is “the most accurate theory ever,” they boast, with 12-decimal-place agreement with experimental measurement [[ii]]. They ignore that the theory rests on summing 10,000 or more terms of a series known to be divergent, each term of which corresponds to a more complicated version of the Feynman diagram of Figure 1.6 [[iii]].
[i] Kragh, H., Dirac: A scientific biography, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 184.
[ii] Consa, Oliver, “Something is rotten in the state of QED,” February 2020. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338980602_Something_is_rotten_in_the_state_of_QED
[iii] Dyson F., “Divergence of Perturbation Theory in Quantum Electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev., 1952 v. 85(4),631–632.
“the most accurate theory ever,”
Sounds much like " the most ethical administration ever "
The set of objects in the universe that I can understand contains the set of things I can explain simply. The set of things I can explain simply may be identical to the set of things I truly understand, as you suggest.
But the set of possible accurate models of the universe is much larger than the set of possible models humans can understand much less articulate.
We found the rules that make the most sense to us that operate on the scale that makes the most sense to us first. That science diverged from there wasn’t a mistake, it was inevitable.
I don’t know what vacuum energy is, and it doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. But neither do black holes, and many other things that fell out of models and only gathered evidence later. The one piece of intellectual heritage worth preserving from the legacy of theology as the queen of sciences is the basic humility that we ought to still bring to the practice. The universe is under no obligation to make itself accessible to human intelligence. All the strange fraying we discover at the margins should only underscore that need for humility. Be like Kepler: accept the spheres aren’t perfect after all.