For example: a recently developed “neoclassical” theory of electromagnetic interactions (Babin & Figotin, 2016) is aimed - as BT does - to extend Classical EM theory (CEM) down to atomic scale, bridging the classical and quantum-mechanical approaches “so they are not separated by a gap but rather overlap in a large common domain”1.

However, despite their successes, these develops introduce assumptions that seem somewhat artificial:

•             The central concept that an elementary charge is not a point but an entity distributed in space, propagating as a wave described by a complex function similar to the Schrodinger wave function.

•             An elementary charge does not interact with itself electromagnetically.

•             Every charge has its own elementary EM potential and field. Conserved elementary current densities are determined via the Lagrangian.

•             Charges interact with each other only through their elementary EM potentials and fields.

•             The field equations for the elementary EM fields are exactly the classical Maxwell equations with the elementary conserved currents. Force densities acting upon charges are exactly the Lorentz forces.

•             And other features…

Moreover, to my impression, the above model looks more similar to QM than to the CEM theory from which it stems or rather it is a hybrid between them.

At first glance, Bridge Theory (BT) does not seem to suffer from these flaws as it does not introduce extraneous hypotheses into the original theoretical framework of CEM but rather proposes a re-interpretation of the emissive phenomena coherent with QM/CEM at the micro/macro scales.

Is this reading of BT correct? 

----------------------------------------------

1 Babin A., Figotin A. (2016) Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, London