Hi Jörn Schliewe ,

suppose the homogeneous field is the field inside a plate capacitor. While the charge remains between the plates, its position doesn't seem to make a big difference. (Certainly, there is a difference but nothing easily conceivable.)

But imagine a charge moving the whole way from one plate to the other. Obviously, the total charge on each plate has changed, and so has the field energy. The energy it took to separate the charge from one plate is compensated by the energy gained by entering the other plate (for the sake of simplicity, assume plates made from identical material).

What remains is the process of traveling through the electric field, and if there were no force acting on the charge, then the principle of energy conservation were violated.

Or, to put it another way: If we know the amount of charge on one plate and if we can calculate the force on this plate, and if we additionally assume that the cause of the force is the field, and that the force is acting on the charge on the plate, then we can calculate the force on an arbitrarily small portion of charge in this field.

Hi Jörg, thanks for discussing with me!

This was my first idea too. But the integration is impossible because the point charge has infinite energy and using a stiff charged sphere makes it not much better. I would expect that the dominating inner energy changes due to the reaction (deformation) of the charge densities on the field. Using Coulomb’s law is not first principle and lead to the question why it works...

Do you think an electric field without charges makes sense?

The plate feels electric field of other plate in one face, but feels no field at other face (neglecting fringing). So there is a force. A charge placed between capacitor plates feel attracted by one plate and repulsed by other- so there is also force. Note, uniform electric field intensity means linearly varying (not necessarily constant) electric potential; and the charge tries to reduce own potential energy naturally. Constant electric potential across any geometric structure means no electric field (vector component) can lie on that geometric structure, and the structure, as it is only concerned, holds no direction of electric field.

Hi Sumit, thanks for the comment. This is the text book approach and Coulomb’s law finally. However, Coulomb’s law contains a singularity at zero distance and therefore I’m afraid not valid under all circumstances. My question is about going one step deeper...

Hi Jörn,

I feel that if you would apply your argument regarding the integration (of the E field, I guess) to all electromagnetic questions, no certain results would be left. E.g., even in the simple case of the field inside the plate capacitor, the field cannot be homogeneous near the discrete charges, and if integration around a whole electron is impossible then integration in the half space containing half an electron (at the surface of one plate) has to be impossible, too.

I wonder where you're heading: Historically, the discovery that charges exert forces on each other was the starting point; later on, the idea of the E field was introduced. So, that (in the framework of field theory) E fields exert forces on charges is an obvious fact.

If I understand your question about the "why" correctly, you do not ask if there is a more "primitive" mechanism (in the sense of taking some or all of the analogous (during the history of physical science invented) fluids, wheels and gears literally) which causes the force, but you ask for a kind of inevitability based on "first principles".

I have one doubt and one objection: Does the classification into first and second principles really belong to physical science, or is it a philosophical projection of human thinking onto the facts? And, as far as I can see, the first principles (if they exist) include the realization that in the realm of elementary particles there can be no such thing as zero distance or zero radius. So, in my opinion, your objections based on infinitesimalities run against the direction of your own question.

BTW, RG claims that your question is based on your project. May I adopt the role of "devil's advocat", and ask one or two questions concerning your electrodynamics paper?

Okay, let’s recall our options to calculate the force:

1. Coulomb‘s law or the change in potential energy. Is the standard approach for point charges. This is in my opinion not first principle and implies that field without charge does not exists.

2. The change in field energy for an infinitesimal displacement. Is first principle but impossible for point charges and seems to enforce a deeper understanding we actually do not have.

3. Using the surface integral of Maxwells stress tensor around the charge. This is numerically stable and used to calculate forces in FEM simulation. But is it first principle?

For a satisfying theory it is clear that all three approaches are the same physics described from different perspectives.

I would classify it as following:

1. is describing the experience under normal conditions

2. Answering the why question

3. Is the best numerical solution and deduced from F=q*E+q*vxB so not answering the why question

Hi Jörg, I added a new question for discussing the paper...

I agree with Joerg Fricke

Dear Abdelkader Mohamed Elsayed

Thanks for your comment! I’m still searching for people who want discuss with me in depth.

The background of this question is the hypothesis that all particles are EM fields only and EM forces are due to minimising the electric field energy and maximising the magnetic field energy. This consequently excludes point charges and leads to my question.

Best regards

Jörn

Jörn Schliewe - There are quite some things to consider with respect to how a force on the plates of a capacitor arises also in relation to the question of what "charge" IS. It is not clear to me what your actual question is, but let's just start with some notes, beginning with Steinmetz, who wrote over a hundred years ago already:

https://archive.org/details/elementarylectur00steirich page 13,14 :

"As seen, the capacity current is the exact analogy, with regard to the dielectric field, of the inductance voltage with regard to the magnetic field; the representations in the electric circuit, of the energy storage in the field. The dielectric field of the circuit thus is treated and represented in the same manner, and with the same simplicity and perspicuity, as the magnetic field, by using the same conception of lines of force.

Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.

There obviously is no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But while the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by the lines of magnetic force, the terminology of electrostatics of many textbooks still speaks of electric charges on the conductor, and the energy stored by them, without considering that the dielectric energy is not on the surface of the conductor, but in the space outside of the conductor, just as the magnetic energy."

This begs the question: why would we assume the electric force to act upon "charges in the space between the plates", while apparently we don't see the need for the magnetic field to act upon "displacement currents in the space surrounding a coil"?

There's also this rather interesting experiment, which suggests Steinmetz may very well have a point:

https://youtu.be/Y_V-Luz6vBg

And we have the Biefeld-Brown effect, which is also very related to the question, about which I wrote in my paper:

-:-

The Biefeld-Brown effect is an electrical phenomenon that has been the subject of extensive research involving charging an asymmetric capacitor to high voltages and the effect is commonly attributed to corona discharges which occur only at the sharp electrode, which causes an imbalance in the number of positive and negative ions created in comparison to when a symmetric capacitor is used.

However, according to a report[45] by researchers from the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the effects of ion wind was at least three orders of magnitude too small to account for the ob- served force on the asymmetric capacitor in the air. Instead, they proposed that the Biefeld– Brown effect may be better explained using ion drift instead of ion wind. This was later con- firmed by researchers from the Technical University of Liberec[46].

If this is correct, then the need for an asymmetric capacitor raises the question if the resulting diverging electric field can indeed be used to obtain thrust by working on an electrically neutral dielectric, in this case a dielectric consisting of air and net neutral ions, and how this results in a net force acting upon the capacitor plates. It is known that a dielectric is always drawn from a region of weak field toward a region of stronger field. It can be shown that for small objects the force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the electric field, because the induced polarization charges are proportional to the fields and for given charges the forces are propor- tional to the field as well. There will be a net force only if the square of the field is changing from point to point, so the force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the field[47].

-:-

The references:

45: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA416740

46: Article Calculation and measurement of a neutral air flow velocity i...

47: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_10.html#Ch10-F8

Doesn't answer the question, but does provide some food for thought that may lead to an answer.

Best regards,

Arend.

Dear Arend,

thanks! I will need some time to read...

Best regards

Jörn

Dear Jörn Schliewe ,

There's another thing I remember noting a couple of years ago, which may be related as well:

https://borderlandsciences.org/journal/vol/46/n02/Dollard_on_Dielectricity_Capacitance.html

"Experiment has indicated that a magnetic field does possess a fibrous construct. By passing a coil of wire thru a strong magnetic field and listening to the coil output in headphones, the experimenter will notice a scraping noise. J. J. Thompson performed further experiments involving the ionization of gases that indicate the field is not continuous but fibrous (ELECTRICITY AND MATTER, 1906)."

As you know, in our model, charge is exclusively tied to "charged particles", whereby it is proposed that charged particles oscillate at a characteristic frequency and thus emit a superluminal longitudinal "sound" wave in all directions.

Obviously, we can't have negative frequencies, so in that case the polarity of charge will need to be explained in some other way. Haven't found an answer yet, but it is clear that charged particles both emit an electric as well as a magnetic field, so I figure the polarity of a particle must be the result of a magnetic phenomenon. In that case, it is conceivable one would obtain a fibrous magnetic field from a permanent magnet, while one would expect the magnetic field from a coil to be continuous.

And since the charge on a capacitor plates is an imbalance of the electron density on the plates, it is conceivable that resulting attracting force is actually magnetic in nature, whereby the fibrous nature of the magnetic field is so fine that this has not been detected.

Maybe a long shot, though.

Best regards,

Arend.

Dear Arend Lammertink

seem that you have no answer yet, too.

I think this is a very interesting and fundamental question. Interesting, because this force is extremely well studied. Fundamental, because forces appear to minimise the electric field energy and maximise the magnetic field energy.

The consequence are that we need a volume and structure of the charges (electron) and we can define a Lagrangian by the fields only. Mass should be pure EM energy. And so on...

An interesting read is Abraham’s work 1903:

https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Prinzipien_der_Dynamik_des_Elektrons_(1903)

I’m not sure if it is translated to English somewhere.

However, the reason for the force should be a change in structure of the charge (contraction or something like this) which makes it preferable to accelerate in terms of overall field energy balance.

Best regards

Jörn

Dear Dr. Jörn Schliewe

Your answer “Using the surface integral of Maxwells stress tensor around the charge” is correct, but “first principles” are needed to explain how the stress tensor comes about and what is ‘charge’. As to your ‘why’ questions, I think I have something for you.

I was delighted to find your project and its aim: “The goal of this project is the description of physics in terms of electromagnetic field theory”, because it is the same as mine.

You have given your picture of the electron as follows; “It has a magnetic moment even at rest. This needs a size larger zero and a very local magnetic dipole field. The dipole field can not be detected from the practical distance but is there.

Proof is the Stern Gerlach Experiment: simple EM theory. The dipole is turned upwards or downwards very fast (first order force). Then the Gradient of the magnetic field leads to the two distinct points on the screen (Second Order force). Nothing mysterious, nothing Quantum, just a dipole moment.”

To me, that is spot on. You also defined your basic premises as follows: “The permittivity ε and permeability μ describe the basic properties of empty space.” and “... the properties of empty space define the properties of wave propagation.” Again, same as mine.

But then, somewhere you stated that “Including the time as a forth dimension into spacetime coordinates seem to be the natural extension of threedimensional space.”

This is what Herman Minkowski did in 1908, and it was a huge mistake. When formulating their theories, both Einstein and Minkowski had only one experimental result to rely on, the one from Michelson and Morley.

I have now uploaded four articles to my researchgate page, in order to introduce my work thus far. One of them is titled QED-based Analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It is a peer reviewed and published article. It results in the conclusion that the Michelson interferometer is insensitive to its velocity in space, meaning that the theories of relativity are based on false foundation. This result is not going away, and it will finally take its toll.

Dear Jörn, I have noticed your query: “I’m still searching for people who want discuss with me in depth.” I have read your papers. I suggest you read my papers. Then, if you will, we can discuss these matters in depth. The context of my papers is ‘Unified Theories’.

Best regards

Jouko A. Rautio

Dear Jouko A. Rautio

thanks for the comment and you are welcome to discuss with me.

I read and commented on the first paper of you. I do not believe in an absolute reference frame but think we need charges to get a physical wave moving. The plane wave is unphysical due to the unbounded fields and all bounded fields need charges. But I believe the charges are created out of nothing by the energy of the wave and following the conservation rules lead to a creation in the reference frame of the source. So I would say an emissivity theory.

Do you have an idea from which first principles we can derive the stress tensor?

Minkowski space is a possible coordinate system but not the only one. For me the mistake is to fix the velocity of potentials to c (all since Lorentz have assumed this). Only for far field waves this is necessary as we need time to store energy in the capacity epsilon against the inertia mu.

The coordinate transformation is necessary math but does not influence the physics. I prefer an Euclidean space time, which enables understanding.

Best regards

Jörn

Dear Jörn.

In my article Electromagnetic Ontology for the Unity of Natural Sciences, hereafter EMO, page 11, under the title Energy and Motion of Particles, you can find two integral representations. From these one can construct a stress-energy tensor.

As to the origin of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor, it must be understood that all particles and their aggregations are sources of multipole radiation. Due to this, around every particle (or molecule) there is a space region in which a test particle (a fermion with dipole field) can encounter a varying energy density and all kinds of forces including torsion, carried by the torus-shaped photons.

Best regards

Jouko