The field-forms used in electrodynamics including classical
electrodynamics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum chromodynamics is
based on Coulomb's point-to-point fields. The lienard-wiechert
potentials (barut, "electrodynamics and classical theory of fields and
particles", dover, 1980, in ch. 5, 'radiation and radiation reaction')
measure the distance between charges in motion as the 3-D distance
directly between the actual charge points. Now this is a very natural
thing to do, and follows from Coulomb's macroscopic electrostatic
experiments. It's important to realise Coulomb performed these
experiments around the time of the French revolution or when Australia
was 'discovered' by Captn James Cook!!. That's ok, but are they
correct at microscopic, atomic, and nuclear levels of interaction?
Should QFT be using coulomb-like fields?

Von Hippel ("Dielectric and waves", Dover, 1962, p45f) uses the
well-known Hertzian potentials to obtain the radiated energy density
(per unit time) in the far-field of an electric dipole antenna. barut
gives the power = 2*e^2*v_dot^2)/(3*4*pi*c^3) The rotating vectors of
the hertzian potential are in the form of a time exponential
well-klnown to mathematicians from the study of differential wave
equations and their general solutions: exp{j*w*(t-r/v)}. Now these
'fields' (actually potentials and NOT electric and magnetic fields
as per Maxwell's equations) suggest a FIXED reference rather than a
moving reference. It was this form of potential (together with a
suggestion from my ph.d supervisor) that led me to attempt to use
centre-of-motion fields. It is only then that the electronic
interaction in atoms can be effectively solved using the Maxwell field
equations.

tony fleming wrote:
The field-forms used in electrodynamics including classical
electrodynamics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum chromodynamics is
based on Coulomb's point-to-point fields. The lienard-wiechert
potentials (barut, "electrodynamics and classical theory of fields and
particles", dover, 1980, in ch. 5, 'radiation and radiation reaction')
measure the distance between charges in motion as the 3-D distance
directly between the actual charge points. Now this is a very natural
thing to do, and follows from Coulomb's macroscopic electrostatic
experiments. It's important to realise Coulomb performed these
experiments around the time of the French revolution or when Australia
was 'discovered' by Captn James Cook!!. That's ok, but are they
correct at microscopic, atomic, and nuclear levels of interaction?
Should QFT be using coulomb-like fields?

Von Hippel ("Dielectric and waves", Dover, 1962, p45f) uses the
well-known Hertzian potentials to obtain the radiated energy density
(per unit time) in the far-field of an electric dipole antenna. barut
gives the power = 2*e^2*v_dot^2)/(3*4*pi*c^3) The rotating vectors of
the hertzian potential are in the form of a time exponential
well-klnown to mathematicians from the study of differential wave
equations and their general solutions: exp{j*w*(t-r/v)}. Now these
'fields' (actually potentials and NOT electric and magnetic fields
as per Maxwell's equations) suggest a FIXED reference rather than a
moving reference. It was this form of potential (together with a
suggestion from my ph.d supervisor) that led me to attempt to use
centre-of-motion fields. It is only then that the electronic
interaction in atoms can be effectively solved using the Maxwell field
equations.

Can you share some of the comments from the peer review process? Can
you post the Abstract?

I can't see anything for 2005 issues on
http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp

--Mike Jr.

Mike, i've been told it's due out this month sometime; a version of the
paper can be found at
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_..._Nov_08_04.pdf

as far as the peer-review process is concerned it was a long process
lasting several years!!

tony fleming wrote:
as far as the peer-review process is concerned it was a long process
lasting several years!!

Tony,
I am still reading it. I have a job and three kids who all are in
sports, but so far I have found it interesting reading.

Sam Wormley posted the following"

1. Sam Wormley Sep 10, 2:53 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math
From: Sam Wormley - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:53:17 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 10 2005 2:53 am
Subject: Insights from atomic physics lead to new routes for spacecraft
[]
[MATHTREK]
Celestial Atomic Physics
Insights from atomic physics lead to new routes for spacecraft.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/...0/mathtrek.asp

What does SFT's center-of-motion have to say about the three-body
problem?

--Best regards,
--Mike Jr

Hi Mike, let me say your kids have chosen a good career path if that is
what they end up doing!! we in australia at the moment are glued to our
tv sets and radio's listening to the first ashes test (cricket, but not
the jumping kind) being played at the Oval surrey U.K.. wonderful
stuff!! c'mon aussies!! sorry about that embarrassing outburst of
nationalistic hubris.

As far as the three-body problem is concerned i would say its a good
candidate to extend the reach of the new method above the hydrogen atom
model which is essentially, at its simplest, a two-body problem. so
thanks for bringing it to mind; i knew about it from my supervisor who
is an 'astronomer' of world class pre-eminence.

btw i found this amongst your ref:

"In celestial mechanics, understanding the nature of chaotic
trajectories is important for predicting what could happen to
populations of small celestial bodies, such as near-Earth asteroids
that could threaten the planet, and for designing gravitationally
assisted transport of spacecraft. In the case of spacecraft, the tangle
of gravitational forces creates tubular "highways" in space along which
these vehicles can proceed with little expenditure of energy (see
"Navigating Celestial Currents" at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050416/bob9.asp)."

this sounds very like the SFT streams!! the article's author may be
somewhat incorrect; it may be the ONLY practical way to move in deep
space; the highways could have been made from the beginnings of the
universe eh? we in our neck of the woods don't yet know how radiation
varies across the cosmos, but SFT suggests that there are streams
criss-crossing deep space, so what the background level of energy is we
don't know 'cos we're using 'classical' field-forms.

by the way, what is your interest? what do you do to bring home the
bacon?

tony fleming wrote:
by the way, what is your interest? what do you do to bring home the
bacon?

My interests are varied; I am a curious guy. The nature of mass, the
violation of Bell's theorem and its implications, and string theory are
on my current reading list.

I own an IT consulting LLC.

--Best regards,
--Mike Jr.