Each particle, Protons and Electron is charged particle, total charge depending on total numbers of particles, and would developed positive or negative charged field(phenomena of lightening).

Dear Newgato Chiro,

You wrote: "We all know that the charge value and the field "strength" are time independent, and since the field propagates at finite speed, we must be loosing energy to fill the yet unfilled space with this field."

There is a longstanding misunderstanding about what the electric field is.

The electric field as defined by Gauss is just an expression of the "potential" Coulomb force that could exist between two charges, because he constructed the E field equation by just removing one of the two charges present in the Coulomb equation:

The electric field defined by Gauss: E= q /(4πεor2),

The Coulomb equation : F = qE = q2 /(4πεor2).

Ref: University Physics, Sears, Zemansky and Young, 6th edition

So the "field" is just a means to help visualize the omnidirectional decreasing strength of the Coulomb force as a function inverse square of the distance from a maximum located at the position of the remaining test charge that would separate it from another charge, if one was inserted at any distance from the test charge.

When this is done, you immediately end up with the force applied to both charges from this distance that can be calculated with the Coulomb equation.

The force does not travel at any velocity, instantly or otherwise. It simply is permanently in action between all charges in the universe. It simply adiabatically induces momentum energy as a function of the distance separating them. It is this energy that has a limited velocity.

Gauss's equation for the electric field (which is Maxwell's first equation), is only a generalization of the Coulomb equation, this is precisely what was being analyzed in the first part of this paper recently published:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Best Regards

André

I want to thank both of you for your answers.

Thank you André Michaud for your paper and detailed answer.

I will certainly get back to you after reading the first part of your paper.

Thank you

Dear Newgato,

It is very good that one made his mind to undersatand the nature of the things. It is so the nature of the things and how they behave is predicted by experimental observations. What is observed is that when a particle is charged with an electric charge,then an electric field is always associated with this charge. The charge is the origin of the electric field. It follows that where ever the charge moves because of any cause its electric field is belonging to it. This is the issue as i understand and believe it.

Best wishes

Dear Newgato Chiro

To understand this properly and avoid any misinterpretations we have to take the approach of Quantum Electrodynamics, which is the most fundamental approach the nature of the electromagnetic field works in. I'm speaking of Field Theories, in particular Quantum Field Theories.

When you speak of a charged particle you are speaking of a Field (lets understand a field as a 'substance'-like entity distributed across the whole Universe), this could be the Electron field for instance, or any of the six Quarks, all these show an electric charge different than zero, and thus they interact (or in the classical view: "produce") with/an electric field.

So, for example, the Electron. It is a field, extended across all the Universe, the field is there, it might be not condensed into matter (this is when we observe the electron particle) in the most part of its locations, but these fields cannot be turned off, they are there, filling all the space, even though they are just seated there in its ground state (this is when we don't observe electrons (particle))

So the Electron (Field) is present in all space, it does n't disappear because there are no electrons, its Ground's Energy State value continues to be there.

So the other field involved here is the Electromagnetic field. Is the same for this (a little different implications since this is a bosonic field, but the general description for our terms is the same).

So it doesn't matter if you shake back and forward an Electron here, the EM field you 'create' is the same that the one in the Andromeda galaxy. There is just one unique EM field, and all points in space are connected through it (this is the concept of a Connection Field).

Now picture these fields as ripples in the water of an infinitely big pound.

When you drop a pebble in it, you disturb the water and form ripples in the water which propagates to far distances in the pond, the intensity and energy of these ripples diminish with distances.

We can use these analogy to get some understanding regarding your question.

The charge of a particle (i.e. electron, quark, etc.) is the action of dropping the pebble.

The EM field is (more precisely): is not the water , is the high of the water level in each point in the pond.

And the EM (or electric) waves are the ripples on the water.

So accepting this approach we can conclude that the EM waves ...

-(which are the ripples in the EM field caused by the interaction with other fields, in this case with the field of the charged particle involved)-

... in theory, can propagate its effect to infinity (as same as the ripples in the pond do) but the interaction of this field (EM field) with other fields makes their intesity to decrease until they disappear. It's important to say that is not the Energy the one which decreases to a limit value of zero, but the Power. subtle difference but important, since the Power (Energy/time) is the one which depends on the intensity of the waves, while the Energy depends mostly on the frecuency, which depends totally of the source.

The latter description is valid without considering the relativistic effects from GR (General Relativity) which makes the frecuency gets lower and the wavelenght larger. In this case yes, the Energy is then lost to other fields (more precicely, could be the vacuum). But this is another scenario.

Ultimately the question that could be risen might be:

Well. Why the ripples in these fields lose its Energy even in locations of the Universe where we know there is essentially nothing. Well, the nothingness does n't exist. Ultimately, if there where no fields present in a location of the Universe (or all the Energy of the fields present would be zero at its Ground Energy State), a field can 'transfer'/lose its Energy to the vacuum, and the vacuum is always there, is the framework where the universe sits, permeating all the space, with a Ground Energy State different than zero.

Regards ! :)

Thank you very much for the detailed answer Franklin Uriel Parás Hernández

I just want a "little" clarification of this :

" So, for example, the Electron. It is a field, extended across all the Universe, the field is there, it might be not condensed into matter (this is when we observe the electron particle) in the most part of its locations, but these fields cannot be turned off, they are there, filling all the space, even though they are just seated there in its ground state (this is when we don't observe electrons (particle)) "

Do you mean that the electron field is not "centered" on the electron, or you mean the whole field is the electron and when we observe a location of this field, we change the "density" of this field and that change of density is what classically known as the electron particle?

My second question is how do we observe the electron ?

Thank you very much

It is just, this seems so ambiguous for someone who is too familiar with the classical view of what an electron is.

Dear Newgato:

What I meant is that the Electron field has no property of being localized. Meaning that it is found at all points in space... ( that is one of the reasons is wrong to say an atom is mostly empty space , this is wrong, an atom is mostly Electron field), so instead of the term "centered" I would better use the term "localized". Particles are localized in space, but fields aren't. So the Electron is the particle we observe when the Electron field vibrates in a certain localization.

You described this roughly well, but insted of using the term "density" we should say the 'Energy Density'. Or more mathematically rigorous; Is at the point in space where the Energy Potential of the field takes a value different than zero.

But, most of the times is more helpful to think of point particles (or as you said: the change in the field at a point in space) as waves, since the wave point of view of nature (electron, photon, neutrinos, etc.) approaches to the matematical description of QFT.

Well, as I said the Electron is just a 'perturbation' (if you like) of certain energy in the Electron field. Strictly speaking it is not possible to observe the particle Electron (as well as any other point-like particle, actually anything with a smaller size than the wavelenght of the light which we are using to try to observe the object).

No one has never seen an Electron, since it's a point-zero size particle. 1) It does n't have structure and 2) it would be infinitely small, hence the visible light waves would never be able to reflect or to be re-emitted by an Electron.

This is another of the reasons why is better to favour the wave-like description of nature when competing with the particle-like description.

So we can talk about the Electron (in quantum mechanical systems for example) as a wave in space (we can think of it as a particle too, but we can see ourselves in troubles sometimes). But this is just a handful description which in many times is useful to take. But when we want to understand how the universe works, to really understand physics at the fundamental level, we have to let go both descriptions, the particle and the wave-like description, and we have to adopt the Field description of reality, this is what at a fundamental level, nature takes form of.

Just one more remark. There are some experiments where we have been able to get a visual description of atoms (for instance) using electronic microscopes like TEMs or the STMs (Scanning Tunneling Microscope). But this is just a way of visualize the distribution of the Electron (now we know we are talking about a field in space) in space. More precisely, is the representation of the distribution of its amplitud of probability (probability of occupation, or probability of the electron field having a certain energy potential in that location), but this does n't mean the Electron (remember, we are adopting the field-description of nature) does n't exists in all the other points in space where we don't observe nothing in the image. Is just that, at the regions where we don't see Electrons at the image, the amplitud's probability of the field is very small.

Best Regards !

Dear Franklin,

You wrote "What I meant is that the Electron field has no property of being localized. Meaning that it is found at all points in space..."

This seems to imply that the whole mass of each electron in existence (countless billions of billions) instantly regroups to be punctually localized when it is scattered against other particles, which makes no sense at all.

I think you confuse the Coulomb force "potential" strength localized on each electron that decreases with distance as a function of the inverse square of the distance from each charged particle in existence as defined by Gauss.

It makes no sense at all that the substance of an electron would regroup at faster than light velocity (instantly) for its total mass to be present at a single point of its trajectory when it is either captured by an atom or collides with another particle.

In high energy accelerators, they constantly accelerate beams of perfectly localized electrons in very narrow tubes.

What you describe is idealized mathematical representations, not physically existing electromagnetic electrons that these mathematical representations are meant to represent some of their properties.

Best Regards

André

Dear André, sir:

The Mass of each particle is a property of the field, so more properly speaking, the Electronic field has a Mass of m = 9.10938356 × 10-31 kg. The observation of the mass on the point particle Electron is just a manifestation of an interaction of the Electron field with another field called the Z (weak's interactions mediator boson) field. This interaction/description is a well established phenomenon which has a well established explanation/framework nowadays, it is called the Higg-Englert-Brout-etc.. mechanism.

Mass is a way the Energy of a field can be manifested (E=mc^2). I'm not saying the Electron field has a mass equivalent to infinite Electrons, Mass is a property of the field and we can measure it when we make the field vibrate (this is when we make an observation and we 'destroy' the delocalization in the field, and we can "observe" part of its Energy localized in one point, we observe this as the Mass of the Electron, but is the same Energy and value in every part of the space where we can find the particle. Is not like when we describe the Electron as a point particle all the Electron field disappears and all the Energy (or Mass) of all the the field condenses into a single point. QTF says that all that exists are Fields.

What you described sir, regarding the Coulomb force is one of the troubles QM has in the frame of Electromagnetic Theory;

the Energy (or potential) of the EM field approach to infinity, as we get close to a point in the vecinity of the Electron. In QED (a Field Theory) this problem gets solved and gives us a clear interpretation (this is in terms of the combination of Field Theory and Special Relativity).

About what you mentioned on the lines of the velocity of the Electron:

QFT says all the opposite. In the explanations I tried to gave to Newgato on my previous posts I tried to show exactly this point: the disturbances in the field (translated to: observed particles), propagate at a finite speed, since they are waves, there is no "action at a distance" phenomenon. A proof of this side of the theory is that QFT includes Spacial Relativity in its framework, which has all the description of propagating waves at a finite speed, in contrast to QM which causes problems with propagating interactions and causality.

About what you described in the case of particle accelerators, again, is just the particle-approach of the description of Physics.

We use localized beams, but that does n't mean an Electron cannot appear or disappear in another point inside the accelerator. If there is enough Energy in the EM field (for example) this field can interact with the Electron field and make it vibrate. Again, a beam of Electrons is just a particular escenario of an Energy localization of the field.

We can approach to this case in a better way laying a hand on QM, which is a rough approximation of QFT.

It is true that the framework of QFT is constituted almost entirely of mathematics, since there are no intuitives descriptions of the links between QFT and the Microscopic or Macroscopic world, but it works. In contrast, not all QM descriptions gives us accurate understanding in agreement with the observations we see in nature, and all the experiments. One of the reasons is that QM is not reconciled with SR.

However, QFTs: like QED, QCD, the Electroweak model, etc.. have been tested since the 70s, over an over again, and as an outstanding it might be, they have been never failed.

Best Regards,

Dear Franklin,

You did not explain how the mass of an electron m = 9.10938356 × 10-31 kg which you say is spread all across the universe, and is intermixed with the masses of other billions upon billions of other existing electrons can instantly regroup to be measured as having this very precise mass.

Dear André:

Im sorry if this is the understanding my answer seems to communicate, I'll try it again though.

I'm not trying to explain how the Mass of all the Electrons in the Universe add up to manifest in a single and localized value when we observe the Electron particle in a point in space. I'm trying to change the paradigm of the classical view of an Electron as a unique particle with particular properties like mass, charge, spin, etc.

What I am saying is that mass, charge, spin and others are fundamentally quantum properties of fields. Associating the mass of a field to a particle is just a useful concept, but fundamentally, mass is attached to the field. Otherwise, how we can understand systems of many Electrons which have mass and nonetheless we describe them as waves ?

The mechanism that gives mass to the Electron (in particular to this field) is the following:

The Electron field has another quantum property which is called Chirality, all the Electrons can have just two values of Chirality (Left Chirality or Right Chirality). When an Electron moves in space (because is a ripple/vibration in the Electron field) interacts with another Quantum Field, the Z. This Field can be treated as a Condensate of Particles (meaning you can add or take one Z from the field and does n't make a change). This field (or the Z particles) has another quantum charge which is awkwardly called: 'Weak Hyper Charge', so this boson (the Z is a gauge boson) can interact with all the particles which have a Baryon or Lepton number different than zero. so the Electron transfers a unit of this Weak Hyper Charge to this Z field, and in doing so, it switches its chirality, from one to other (right-handed to left-handed or viceversa). A change in the value of a quantum property gives mass to particles, since this prohibits the particle to travel at the speed of light.

What is spread across all space is the Field, and mass is one of the properties which characterize the field, mass is not spread across all the universe, but the field itself and its Energy is, and we can speak of the field in terms of mass, spin, different kind of charges, etc...

You said sir; "... billions upon billions of other existing electrons can instantly regroup to be measured as having this very precise mass". But again, there is just one Electron field. The mass of the Electron is just one of the properties (others are spin and electric charge) that characterize the ripples in the field at one particular point in space, but all the ripples in the field are associated with the same magnitud. This is the reason that all the Electrons have the same mass, spin and charge, because they are properties of the same field. It does n't mean that each time we make the field vibrates we create a new Electron, the Electron has always been there (the observation of the particle is just an "volume up-volume down" of the Field, loosely speaking). And when we say that we observe a particle Electron, and we measure its charge or mass, it means that we observed one of this perturbations in the field, and we could measured its Energy, but any other perturbation in the field at any other point in space will have the same; amplitud, same Energy, and same properties (this is because the Electron is a fermionic field, and the value of its energy potential at any point in space can have just values between 0 and 1, with almost all the times being close to one of these two values..

Uriel,

Best Regards !

Dear Uriel,

Ok, I sort of follow your logic.

How do you account for the momentum energy that an electron is induced with for it to move in the narrow tube of high energy accelerators?

Dear André:

To come out with an answer to your question is hard.

I'm gonna try to get a hand of two ideas to try to set up the context first:

Firstly, I want to say that often the answer to these questions, where we requier a link between: such a fundamental description of physics to something (at least somewhat more) macroscopic -(another way to say this is: or some phenomenon which shows emergent properties from a more fundamental explanation)-

is quite dificult.

I guess this is because we cannot come out with an intuitive connection between both descriptions: between Quantum Fields and a beam of particles, in this case. I am a believer that explanations which come from the more fundamental levels of nature are the most difficult ones to get our heads around on.

Secondly, I would like to give a little more thoughts on this scenario. But picturing the case from a more general description (outside the picture, if you want), not with a classical point of view:

When we think about this scenario; a beam of Electrons circulaiting into a Syncrotron, e.g. We speak of/and try to characterize the beam with a certain Energy and Intensity. And with the term Energy we mean the Total Energy one Electron is carrying, times the number of Electrons (or other particles) in the beam.

But what I've been trying to say is that: we don't really can observe this beam of Electrons, we cannot picture them (the e-) using a clasical view, (I'm not trying to discuss whether the Electrons are Wave Functions and the Wave Function of the beam collapses into the observed state when we make a measurement onto the system. No, I'm not trying to draw upon a Wave Function-based explanation to the original question).

What I'm trying to remark is about the size of the beam, and because the beams is made of particles

-(I know, I may not be following my beliefs on this discussion calling the Electrons like that, but in the sake of the point...)-,

point particles which does n't have a size. So again, properties like the mass of the beam, charge, momentum, etc, are not physical properties we can observe directly. We can measure them, but the measurement was never really been related with the particles being an object or have came from the Energy of the particles as point objects (in this case I'm trying to make a point in favour of the concept of... emergence from the field).

So for the case of the linear momentum (p=mv) of the beam I think the explanation should be similar as the explanation i tried to give about the mass.

Im sorry but at this point my understanding of QTF gets to its limit. I cannot give a full explanation to your question André.

However, I believe this is the point where from here to been able to answer such unintuitive questions, isn't possible to do it without a deep use of the mathematical framework of QFT.

I'm sure that with the mathematics of QTF; Lagrangians, vector potentials, etc., we would be able to yield a mathematics-based satisfactory explanation to your question. Which I cannot provide since QFTs is not my field of work and I just understand some of the general descriptions, but not the deep mathematical theory.

One more thing related to the kind of question: I think it would be easier to provide an answer, e.g.: of What would be the outcome of particles we will obtain from a collision of two beams of e- ? (the velocities and its directions, and the corresponding energies of the produced particles) using Feynman diagrams to compute the amplitud of each diagram using QED, than to give a fundamental answer to your question sir.

I believe that most of the times, the most fundamental questions are the hardest to been answered.

Best Regards ! :)

Dear Uriel,

How refreshing to discuss with an open minded person who honestly tries to address these types of issues.

I have comments that may be of interest to you, but as I work full time and am at work right now, I have to delay my answer until tonight after work.

I will be back.

Best Regards, André

Dear André:

Thank you for the reply,

Yes I will wait, :)

Hopefully the discussion will continue with such a valuable interest

Good Day ,

What is the experimental basis for the assertions in the question.

I thought an electron at very low temperatures ("at rest" -not moving) had no charge/coulomb field?

de Sangro measured the coulomb field at many time the speed of light - in any experiment we can do on Earth, this is nearly infinite speed.

Suggesting the effect throughout the universe must be a result of theory, not actual experiment measurement. So, perhaps you should state the theory with which you are working.

Dear Uriel,

You wrote: "I guess this is because we cannot come out with an intuitive connection between both descriptions: between Quantum Fields and a beam of particles"

Yes. This has been a major stumbling block for the past century.

You wrote: "a beam of Electrons circulaiting into a Syncrotron, e.g. We speak of/and try to characterize the beam with a certain Energy and Intensity. And with the term Energy we mean the Total Energy one Electron is carrying, times the number of Electrons (or other particles) in the beam."

Absolutely correct. This total energy of the beam, made up of the sum of the energies of each individual electron in the beam is calculated with the Lorentz force equation.

You wrote: "But what I've been trying to say is that: we don't really can observe this beam of Electrons, we cannot picture them (the e-) using a clasical view,"

Yes we can. Or should I rather say, we could, before the trend to use bubble chambers mostly came out of style.

I append a photograph of experiment E632 taken at Fermilab showing traces of individual localized electrons and positrons moving on very precise trajectories while spiralling in a magnetic field.

You wrote: "point particles which does n't have a size."

Note that the idea of electrons seen as "point particles" without any size is only an idealized mathematical representation, convenient for calculations purposes, just like the whole mass and volume of the Earth is mathematically treated as if it was concentrated in a single point without any size located at its center of mass for trajectory calculation purposes. But we nevertheless know full well that the Earth is not a point-planet without any size moving on a trajectory.

The same logic has to apply to the real electron moving on a trajectory. The difference is the difference between the mathematical representation and the physically existing object. As Korzybski wrote: The map is not the real country.

You wrote: "properties like the mass of the beam, charge, momentum, etc, are not physical properties we can observe directly. We can measure them, but the measurement was never really been related with the particles being an object or have came from the Energy of the particles as point objects"

Yes they have. They constantly do in high energy accelerators. Take the bubble chamber image I provided, for example. During the experiment, they knew very precisely the intensity of the magnetic field that they had activated, and that caused the trajectories of the electrons and positrons to deflect as you observe.

From this value, the exact mass, momentum, and charge of the electrons and positrons can be calculated with the highest level of precision.

You wrote: "Im sorry but at this point my understanding of QTF gets to its limit. I cannot give a full explanation to your question André."

I agree, QFT does not provide an easy answer, but electromagnetism does, since it is with electromagnetic equations that they guide electrons (and all other charged particles) in high energy accelerators.

If you can get hold of this very fine book by Stanley Humphries, Jr. titled "Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration", you will become acquainted with all of the math used in high energy accelerators to guide charged particles:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.382.7882&rep=rep1&type=pdf

You see, although QFT is well grounded on electromagnetism and gave rise to the development of QED, it is not well suited to describe localized charged particles actually moving in space because of the quantization of space in QFT. Original electromagnetism, however does not go the way of quantization and is much easier to use in describing the actual motion of particles.

Actually, QFT, QED, electromagnetism, classical electrodynamics all are idealized mathematical representations each describing different aspects of the same really existing particles.

You wrote: " One more thing related to the kind of question: I think it would be easier to provide an answer, e.g.: of What would be the outcome of particles we will obtain from a collision of two beams of e- ? (the velocities and its directions, and the corresponding energies of the produced particles) using Feynman diagrams to compute the amplitud of each diagram using QED, "

Well, in the 1960's and 1970's, at the SLAC facility, they carried out countless such experiments of electrons and/or positron beams colliding head on, but they used electromagnetic equations to calculate their energy, velocity, etc. for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258088681_Evidence_for_Jet_Structure_in_Hadron_Production_by_ee-_Annihilation

You wrote: " I believe that most of the times, the most fundamental questions are the hardest to been answered."

You would be surprised at how many of these fundamental questions have already been coherently answered. Don't forget that the best minds around have been working at this for the past hundred years.

The trouble is that current textbooks and popular references do not generally refer to them as they typically only refer to the currently trendy theories. To find them, you have to dig on your own into the haystack.

Best Regards

Best Regards, André

Present research includes the relativistic mechanics of the electron, in mainstream University level explorations. What is becoming clear is that electron flow is a projection system that employs neutrino mitigated entanglement . This occurs both across space mediums and particle mediums including atoms. There are differences of response time (as far as "flow" perceptions) in each type of medium, and also where electrons are transformed reversibly to photons and then electrons etc.... As far as the electric field and infinity, well, the field is the external expression of entanglement, when we measure any position in space, and detect a value. The value detected requires the detector to exchange energy potential with the field, in oscillation, rather than consume the field potential. If the field is measured and consumed in some part, a loss of electron potential is found for this case, because this potential is transferred to the detector. The type of measurement therefor determines the change in the system being evaluated. In the future, we may be stating all of these cases in terms of entanglement, and neutrino types, in a mappable and quantifiable set of models.

Andre' Michaud , the Fermilab jpg image is rich with the neutrino artifacts. Any Phi curl is a neutrino artifact, whereas the variation from Phi indicates the secondary spin that is internal to the particular particle, and the modality of that spin is defined by any timed periodic deviation(s). That is where "complex spin" is described by such images.

Dear Marc,

I would really be interested in reading the formal paper that describes the neutrino artifacts that you report in this Fermilab jpg image and that analyzes the "complex spin" in this image.

Can you provide the reference, or at least the title of the paper?

Best Regards, André