Polarizing the vacuum.

Jerry

I agree that in 'air' there can be polarized molecules, e.g. lightning, and we get 'breakdown' so your answer is another possibility. Can you give more detail of this energy? Any reports?

I'm looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization "As of 2012, this polarization and magnetization has not been directly measured."

I comment that these are both in the realm of high energy physics and not 'normal' (or lower energy) electric and magnetic fields found within the terrestrial domain. So are these gluons etc found in EM? Not in what we might term 'normal energy' electrostatics (quasi-stationary) at any rate.

Dear Tony,

“How does ‘charge’ create an electric field and its force? “

this question isn’t new on the RG and it is possible that some answers for you exist, for example, in threads https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happens_to_the_photon_when_it_is_absorbed_Does_it_die_out_or_does_it_just_loose_its_energy_and_keep_alive and https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_photon_really/2

Including this:

“…the concept of 'charge' as something related to 'spin'. If two particles possess the opposite direction of 'spin', say a proton and an electron, there will be an attractive force induced…”

isn’t so. There are a lot of particles that are electrically neutral but have non-zero spins. Spins don’t create electric field, and in corresponding spin-spin [for example see Pauli exclusion principle] or spin-orbital [angular momentum] interactions the electric field only possibly [physics don’t know some corresponding Nature forces for these interactions and they simply ad-hoc are introduced in the QM] “is used”.

Cheers

Hi Sergey

Thanks for the link; but I wanted to ask a specific question that indicates the level to which the SFT solution gives us, even a suggestion that 'charge' is not so much an intrinsic quality of matter but something connected to our picture of electromagnetics, a coupled relationship between spins of orbits of both photons and particles.

I'm not using quantum spin which is different; and Pauli's exclusion principle is seen in SFT as a phase shift of 180 degrees between two electrons allowing them to use the same orbit; there's two protons that are also following Pauli's exclusion principle in the nuclear shells of an atom. In a sense these photons that are involved in this situation are like quantum field theory's virtual particles but they exist all the time and don't flash in and out of existence.

What I'm saying is that there is a small series of photon-particle collisions that cause the attraction or repulsion; so there's a series of photons that are colliding with a particle (electron or proton) causing it to change its motion.

So electrostatics can be based on the same theory as SFT, many small collisions between photons and atomic particles.

Notice that the photons have a 3-D mathematical solution like the two particles in the hydrogen atom , unlike quantum theory where only a straight (wavy) line is drawn in Feynman diagrams to illustrate photons.

Article Self-field theory-new photonic insights

best regards Tony

This is a reply I just sent to @YingquiGu

I agree, about the EM (Maxwell's) equations being good; it is the Pythagorean metric that is incorrect because the forces and fields don't move along the hypotenuse; they move along the 'opposite' length and the 'adjacent' length; in other words not ONE variable but TWO. This is the nub (crux) of the matter. The field (or photon) needs two variables in the mathematical description of the problem.

If we look at them as 'geometric entities', we see there are two 'pairs' of equations, one curl and one div in each pair. Each pair describes a circular motion, one with charge at its centre, and the other with no charge at the centre (magnetic motion doesn't change the particle's energy).

Using a model of the atom as BOTH an electron AND a proton (unlike the quantum mechanics model where a single particle is used), Maxwell's equations for the application to the hydrogen atom can be rewritten using the exponential motion (r*exp(j*omega*t). We get to a point where we see the formulation can be viewed EITHER as the motions of the particles OR the motions of the field (which are field particles we call photons). In other words the equations form an interface between field and particle.

It is via a series of collisions between field (photon) and particle that we can find out what Planck's 'quantum of energy' is.

There's much more in the formulation but this is the nub as I said.

kind regards Tony

PS This to me is much simpler than quantum theory where we use probabilistic reasoning within a single particle formulation instead of the mutual formulation between the two particles.

Hope this helps.

Charge is property of matter that causes two objects to attract or repel. In this model, you have to consider all charges acting on each other. If some charges are considered as producing a field, and one charge is considered as a test-charge in that field, then you can compute the “force per unit charge” that would be experienced if a charge were placed in the field.

Fundamental charges occurs in hydrogen atom, because it has got one positive charge (proton) and negative charge (electron). Opposite charges can be brought only this much closeness as in hydrogen atom. By giving energy they are separated but they recognize the path. This is called electric field (force on a positive charge exerted by a point charge). Fundamentally charges can’t stay separately; it forms bonds in different ways and sty in stable condition.

A field is a way of conceptualizing and mapping the force that surrounds any object and acts on another object at a distance without apparent physical connection. For example, the gravitational field surrounding the earth (and all other masses) represents the gravitational force that would be experienced if another mass were placed at a given point within the field.

And negative charges create fields that point radially toward them. And you can find the direction of the electric force on a charge since positive charges feel an electric force in the same direction as the electric field in that region.

Coulomb's Law describes forces acting at a distance between two charges. We can reformulate the problem by breaking it into two distinct steps, using the concept of an electric field.

Think of one charge as producing an electric field everywhere in space and the force on another charge introduced into the electric field of the first, is caused by the electric field at the location of the introduced charge.

If all charges are static, you get exactly the same answers with electric field as you do using Coulomb's Law. The electric field concept comes into its own when charges are allowed to move relative to each other.