Re: Chubykalo and Vlaev's basic mistake

Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:30:22 -0500:

Juan R. González-Álvarez keeps touting this paper as "proof" that there
are "instantaneous interactions" in classical electrodynamics:

You start with a misreading. This gives my a bad feeling about the rest
of your posting...

Chubykalo and Vlaev, "Necessity of Simultaneous Co-existence of
Instantaneous and Retarded Interactions in Classical
Electrodynamics",
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 24, p3789-3798 (1999).

J.D. Jackson issued a criticism (hep-ph/0203076, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A17
(2002) 3975-3979). Chubykalo and Vlaev responded (physics/0205041v1,
unpublished).

In both the original paper and in their reply C&V make the same clear
and obvious mistake, one which Jackson pointed out. C&V claim

d|R|/dt0 = -c (I use ASCII d where they use \del)

[Here |R| is the distance to the observation point from
the source position at the retarded time t0.]

Jackson points out this is inconsistent with the next equation in the
original paper (between eq. 15 and 16), and the the correct value is:

d|R|/dt0 = - R.V/|R| (R and V are bold)

[R is the 3-vector from source to observation point and V is
the 3-velocity of the source evaluated at retarded time t0.]

It is easy to see that Jackson is correct and C&V are wrong: Consider
the source charge moving perpendicular to the line connecting source and
observation point. For this case, |R| is unchanging, and d|R|/dt0 MUST
be zero. Jackson's formula gives this value, C&V's formula does not.

Both you and Jackson are plain wrong. You are simply repeating Jackson
mistake on (hep-ph/0203076)

(\blockquote
This first equation (3) is inconsistent with the correct second equation
in that line.
)

The authors already addressed this specific mistake on
(physics/0205041v1). They were very clever when pointed basic aspects
that Jackson ignored

(\blockquote
In his work J.D.Jackson considers our expression [...] as wrong,
referring to formula R = r − r0 (t0 ). The point is what one means by
the operator (partial / partial t) and by a function R in Ref. 3.
)

These are two important points both Jackson and you did not consider.

To compute this explicitly, at time t0+dt0 we have:
R(t0+dt0) = R(t0) - V dt0 (sign from direction of R) |R(t0
+dt0)|^2
= R(t0)^2 - 2 R.V dt0 + V^2 dt0^2
Subtracting |R(t0)|^2, dividing by dt0, and taking the limit:
d|R|^2/dt0 = -2 R.V
But
d|R|^2/dt0 = 2 |R| d|R|/dt0
and Jackson's result follows.

Of course, Jackson eq. (5) is not the substitute for (3). You are just
repeating his elementary mistake. Nothing new...

When i read Jackson paper the first time I was really surprised how
Jackson (and now your) make this deep mistake when pretending that (5) is
the substitute for (3).

Him reveals a completely ignorance of basic aspects of electromagnetic
interactions. I do not complain about your postings here, but
unfortunately Jackson work was published and may be confounding people
now.

By this reason I had introduced a section titled "derivation of dualism
for interactions: analysis of lienard & wiechert potentials" in my paper
"Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism: foundation and generalizations" [#].

In that section I devote an entire page (21 in current draft) to explain
what is the origin of Jackson (and now your) elementary mistake.

In that page I prove rigorously why the first equation in the unnumbered
set of equations below Eq.(15) is compatible with the second and why
Jackson criticism is invalid.

Of course, it is needed a bit more of mathematical and physical rigor
that your naive *mathematically unrigorous* derivations given above. For
instance, I use a Feynman diagram for revealing the microscopic physical
origin of your mistake.

The other problem was pointed out by Jackson, and completely ignored by
C&V in their response: Just before eq (11) in the original paper, C&V
state "\phi and A must not depend on x,y,z,t explicitly". This is
nonsense -- those potentials QUITE CLEARLY have an explicit dependence
on x,y,z,t (and also an implicit dependence via the retarded time t0).

Well authors already addressed this misunderstanding from Jackson (and
now you) in their (physics/0205041v1): pages 1 and 2.

They addressed this and use *bold face* to correct the misreading, but
you ignore and you are *selectively* quoting them (ignoring the *crucial*
part "Now, following this note of Landau and Lifshitz [...]") for
confounding readers. This is a very unfair attitude.

Jackson points out that their omitting this explicit dependence was
offset by a different mistake in computing the fields, but there's no
offsetting mistake in verifying Maxwell's equations. So their conclusion
that the fields don't satisfy Maxwell's equations is wrong, and Jackson
shows this.

This is also unfair. They explained three times what they did and *why*.
In the reply (physics/0205041v1) they wrote:

(\blockquote
*Once more*: if, following Landau and Lifshitz aforementioned idea, one
does not take into account the explicit dependence of fields on t,
rather only the implicit one, we can see that in this case (exclusively
in this case!) fields (4) and (5) do not satisfy Maxwell equations.
[...]
In Section 4 of our work we showed that [...] That is why we do not
understand why J.D.Jackson did the same in Section 4 of his work.
)

In their conclusion, C&V state that one must include both the implicit
and explicit dependence on x,y,z,t. Well DUH! Of course one must do so!
Indeed, their original (incorrect) claim was due to their omitting the
explicit dependence! But the fact that the potentials and fields have
explicit dependence on t is not any sort of "instantaneous interaction"
-- x,y,z,t are the LOCAL place and time of the observation, and have
nothing whatsoever to do with the source. As I said before: there is no
place in this paper where any property of the source is evaluated at t,
EVERY evaluation of source quantities is at t0, the RETARDED time; so
there is no "instantaneous interaction" between source and observation.

This is another deep misunderstanding from you. But this was corrected in
this newsgroup several times before.

(snip)

Bottom line: there is no problem with the usual formulation of classical
electrodynamics [...]

This was also Jackson inaccurate comment:

(\blockquote
Finally, regarding two phrases of J.D.Jackson in the Abstract and at the
close of Ref. 1: "Classical electromagnetic theory is complete as
usually expressed" and "Electromagnetic theory is complete in any chosen
gauge", two sufficiently authoritative physicists of 20-th century help
us: R. Feynman6 :
“...this tremendous edifice (classical electrodynamics), which is
such a beautiful success in explaining so many phenomena, ultimately
falls on its face. ...Classical mechanics is a mathematically
consistent theory;
it just doesn’t agree with experience. It is interesting, though,
that the classical theory of electromagnetism is an unsatisfactory
theory all by itself. There are difficulties associated with the
ideas of Maxwell’s theory which are not solved by and not directly
associated with quantum mechanics...”

W. Pauli7 :
“We therefore see that the Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics is quite
incompatible with the existence of charges, unless it is
supplemented by extraneous theoretical concepts” (The choice of
italics was Pauli’s).

and there is no "instantaneous
interaction" in this paper, except in the title. Both C&V's and Juan R.
González-Álvarez's claims to the contrary are wrong.

As showed above your evaluation of their work is based in misreadings,
selective quotation, and several deep mistakes.

In my paper cited above I derive the retarded LW potentials, from an
instantaneous relativistic theory :-). This is something completely
revolutionary as all experts who have revised the work agree.

The new theory defines the limits of applicability of field theory and
Relativity. I call it post-relativity.

Prof. Roman has informed me two days ago they will start the third
generation of experiments (yes your criticism was also ill-informed at
the experimental side).

My theory is not exactly theirs and I am still revising some computations
and experimental setup for JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 101, 023532 2007.
From abstract

(\blockquote
Comparison with the experimentally obtained data showed
considerable discrepancy with the predictions of the standard
electromagnetic theory
)

From conclusions

(\blockquote
Based on these results, one can conclude that experimental data do not
support the validity of the standard retardation constraint v = c
generally accepted in respect to bound fields.
)

I also know one author who has found that experimental results (Fig. 6)
for v > 10c are indistinguishable from a theory with v = infinite. But I
still am revising all of this.

However, I already proved that interactions (EM and gravity) are not
retarded and how the LW potentials, the spacetime, relativity and the
retardation (by c) arise as a special case valid only in the *local*
approximation to a more general nonlocal DPI theory of interactions.

I am also working in application of the novel theory to experimental
cases where we know standard Maxwell EM and GR fail. I am very satisfied
that the new theory agrees with all the results that field-metric model
cannot explain :-)

(snip ad hominem)

(snip)

[#] A copy was distributed Feb 26 to different expertises including
mathematician Roman Smirnov-Rueda (see Ref 9-10 on C&V). No
mathematical mistake have been found and indeed several experts are
claiming problems due to complexity of my paper. I do not wait you or
Jackson to understand my work for instance :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
.

Quantcast