Re: why can't fields be quantized too?


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> flames wrote:
> > Physics said the energy levels of fields are quantized
> > as in photons but the field itself is not quantized.
> > What would happen if you quantize the fields too?
>
> Please be specific. What exactly do you *mean* with "quantize
> the fields"?
>
> In fact, most physicists would argue that this *is* indeed done in
> Quantum Field Theory!
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern

A mathematical 'genius' called Dr. Fleming has spent over
30 years (that is.. he started the study even before
you were born) researching about Quantum Field Theory, QCD,
QM, etc. He finally understood how they were 'wrong' and
will publish the 'corrected' enhanced version in Physics
Essays to stun the world of physics. He explained it thus
(has your lab informed you about it in advanced already?):

The terminology of quantum field theory (QFT) is misleading; the
'field' referred to is not a field, not the measureable kind of
E- or H-field at any rate, but it is defined as a field while in
reality related to classical 4-potentials, i.e. voltages. When
compared to SFT, a true 'field' theory, we need to examine what a
field is at the atomic level compared to dipole and coil
measurements. It is instructive to survey the main equations used
by physic ists since Maxwell's equations
<http://scienceworld.wolfr am.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html>
were formulated in 1873. They describe the macroscopic E- and
H-fields, and their associated charges and currents measured in
experiments by Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere, Biot, and Savart from
1785 onwards. Several EM wave equations
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html> were
derived including decoupled forms where the E- or H-fields appear
in isolation; Maxwell's equations were specialized to various
applications <http://hyp ertextbook.com/physics/elec
tricity/em-waves/> e.g. for quasistationary or radiation
conditions. Hertz
<http://dibinst.mit.edu/DIBNER/DIConferences/OldConferences/Sloan/reflecti.htm>'s
potentials <http://www.andrijar.com/phipps/> introduced a
mixed-field substitution in terms of a Lagrangian or energy
density for solving via integrals over radiation surfaces where
infinite regions needed to be considered; these are known as the
Hertzian vector and scalar potential wave equations.

Following theoretical and experimental demonstrations by Planck
and Einstein of the existence of a quantum physics, there was a
failure by physicists to find a mathematics based directly on
Maxwell's equations that applied to the electron's motion in the
atom. In 1926 Schr"dinger
<http://www.missioncollege.org/depts/physics/P4poe/P4D/Schrodinger.htm>
used energy conservation to obtain a quantum mechanical equation
in a variable called the wave function that accurately described
single-electron states such a s the hydrogen atom. The wave
function depended on a Hamiltonian function and the total energy
of an atomic system, and was compatible with Hertz's potential
formulation. The wave function depends on the sum of the squares
of E- and H-fields as is seen by examining the energy density
function of the electromagnetic field
<http://patsy.hunter.cuny.edu/CORE/CORE4/LectureNotes/Mwaves/magwaves3.htm>.

In 1928 Dirac realising the wave functions were not relativistic
sought a set of e quations incorporating Einstei n's relativity.
Dirac's equations
<http://www.physics.orst.edu/~allenlw/Ph65456/Media/PDFs/QM656.24.Dirac(3).pdf>
were described in terms of two 'fields', the so-called Dirac
fields, and were described as 'field equations of motion'. The
term "Dirac's two wave equations" was also used. Like
Schr"dinger's equation, there was a mathematical smearing of the
SFT fields as we shall see. The problem was now 'wave-like'
instead of two uncluttered fields and Heisenbe rg formulated the
uncertainty principle
<http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html>. The
underlying SFT centre-of-motion fields had been lost in the
potential equations. By the time the equations governing the weak
and strong nuclear forces were found using modern versions of
QFT, quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics
(QCD), any fields, macroscopic or atomic, were a long-forgotten
reality.

But why can't the potentials give us a correct picture of the E-
and H-fields at atomic levels? After all we have Hertz's
potential equations that give a correspondence between classical
potentials and fields? The question is: do Maxwell's E- and
H-fields determined between point-charges exist within the
nanoscopic domain of the atom? Recently it has been demonstrated
by EMSFT for the hydrogen atom
<http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf>
that these E- and H-field form s are not applicable to sub-atomic
charges. Why? The analytic solutions obtained from EMSFT for the
hydrogen atom are validated by the known spectroscopy where we
determine the atomic fields between centres of motion and not
between charge points. This issue is at the crux of why classical
vector and scalar potentials cannot obtain the correct solution;
the macroscopic fields of Coulomb and Biot-Savart do not hold at
atomic dimensions; the fields caused by the motions of the p
hotons inside the atom are not correctly formulated point-charge
to point-charge. The classical potentials cannot give us the
correct answer, because the classical field theory as we have
long known is wrong. The potential solution was in a sense
chasing its tail; the classical fields and potentials are
incorrect over atomic dimensions as Heisenberg had correctly
determined. Reality wasn't in error; but classical field theory
was and thus also quantum field theory. Coulomb's, and Biot's and
Savart's famous E- and H-field forms apply to m acroscopic
phenomena not to atomic systems. The photons inside atoms in fact
stream between electrons and nucleons. These photonic streams are
not ubiquitous nor continuous, they are discrete and
discontinuous. They behave like Dirac delta functions
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DeltaFunction.html>, an interesting
fact in terms of their role in solving Maxwell's equations for
self fields (see below on numerical methods FEM vs FDM).

Another term needs clarification: spinor. In Dirac's formulation
the resulting complex matrices were capable of synthesis into
various Dirac "bispinors". These are adjointly coupled 2 x 2
'unit' spinors (determinant = 1) that have a left- or
right-handed helicity associated with them. In the chiral
representation of Dirac's equation, the terms are 4 x 4 matrices
comprised of Pauli spinors. In SFT, the term 'spinor' is used for
the motions of the E- and H-fields, and for the motions of the
particles, such as the electron or proton. Everything in the
mathematics of SFT, both particles and their (particulate)
fields, move as rotating vectors; like QFT for the atom there are
two spinors, or four variables per subatomic particle. In the
following, the terms 'wave equation' and 'vector and scalar
potentials' are applied to all quantum field theories that follow
the heritage of Dirac's wave equations up to and including
today's standard model. In this aspect SFT is indeed the only
true 'field' theory, not only because it uses the term 'field' in
an historically correct sense but further it applies these fields
not between charge points, but (instantaneous) centres of motion.

MATHEMATICS OF SFT AND QFT

The mathematics of self-field theory (SFT) and quantum field
theory (QFT) are very different. In SFT the eigenvalue nature of
the hydrogen atom system of equations fits the concept of a
quantized physics; in QFT it is mandated apriori as part of
quantum mechanics. Hence in SFT quantization is a consquence of
the mathematics and in QFT it is an artifice, inserted by Planck
to solve the analytic problem of blackbody radiation. The fields
in SFT are seen as streams of discrete photon interchanges
between atomi c sub-particles; in QFT the fields are considered
continuous and ubiquitous, operating over all solid angles,
similar to the classical fields of the macroscopic world
discovered by Coulomb and Biot-Savart. Feynmann glimpsed the
physics of the quantum world without realising the difficulties
presented by the potential theory associated with the classical
wave equations, the basis of the Standard Model. In today's QCD,
the wave functions are modelled by lattices instead of continuous
functions < http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/QCD_lattice_model> and
so are discrete in a numerical sense. But in its analytic
eigenvalue solutions to the hydrogen atom, SFT provides a natural
basis for quantum physics. Differences between SFT and QFT are
fundamental as to how we view quantum physics; either as a
'strange, bizarre' world at the tiny atomic and nuclear
dimensions, or a natural view fitting the long-term mathematical
framework built up over preceding centuries and millenia
<http://www-groups.dcs. st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistT
opics/Matrices_and_determinants.html>. The Sturm-Liouville
problem
<http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Sturm.html>,
an eigenvalue problem in 2nd order odes, was solved in 1836-37.

As stated <http://www.unifiedphysics.com/index.htm>, an analogy
exists between QFT and SFT via two numerical techniques: the
finite element method (FEM)
<http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/bf/node8.html> and finite difference
method (FDM) <http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/bf/node7.html>. While
both are primarily numerica they contain the essence of an
analytic comparison between QFT and SFT. Both are used to solving
partial differential equations, such as the inhomogenous wave
equation (1) <http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/tea
ching/jk1/lectures/node19.html>, (2)
<http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~gerlach/math/BVtypset/node24.html>
or Maxwell's equations for the self-fields
<http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf>.
The major difference between these analytic formulations lies in
the integrals associated with the scalar and vector potentials of
QFT compared with the direct substitution for the E- and H-field
forms into the partial differential equa tions by SFT. In QFT we
do in fact require some form of numerical method to solve the
wave equations. In SFT the direct spinorial subsitution is
suffice to produce a solvable system of equations; no numerical
methods are necessary, only a system of spinorial equations needs
to be solved via linear algebra techniques. Although the
inhomogeneous wave equation appears to be a reduced set of
equations compared with Maxwell's equations, two equations rather
than four, the necessary constraints upon the gauge condition
mean that the ve ctor substitutions in se tting up the potentials
lead to complications later on in the analytic solution. The
analytic difficulties of the wave equation are exacerbated by the
second order of the two wave equations and their associated gauge
conditions compared with the four first order Maxwell equations.

Of course the self-field solution has only been available for the
past few years. The vector and scalar potential solution
incoprorated inside quantum mechanics was the only method known
to solve non-radiating atomic systems. The self-field requires
the special boundary condition that it be confined within a
finite region of space without radiation out to infinity. This is
not a closed or bounded problem such as a waveguide. Rather it is
an open problem, akin to a non-radiating antenna, somewhat a
semantic tortology. Yet there is such an antenna. We can arrange
for the (two) feeds on an antenna to provide no nett radiation.
It isn't very practical in terms of radiation, but it may well be
of practical use as a means of preventing radiation leaking into
regions where it is not desired. Thus the groups known as SU(2)
and SU(3) and their space-time inverses are candidate solution
forms for the self-fields due to wave equations and
'Maxwell-like' equations. Such forms are well known to
mathematicians, sc ientists, and engineers seeking general
solutions to sets of homogeneous partial differential equations
<http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/math/mat10/start.htm>. As we
should expect, the spinors of SFT are closely related to the
groups within QCD, and QED. In fact apart from the fact that QCD
and QED use such exponential forms as unit 'bispinors' and
'trispinors', and have a variable magnitude within SFT, there is
no difference. We shall see that there is a family of
'Maxwell-like' equations for both electromagnetic (EM ) and other
fields that give rise to weak and strong nuclear forces. The
self-field solution is indeed a novel mathematical solution that
allows 'dirac delta' particles to move in a field (consisting of
tiny 'dirac delta' particles) such that they do not emit
radiation (no photons escape into he outside world).

In comparing the numbers of unknown variables in QFT and SFT, we
first must specify the application. In atomic physics, there are
in quantum electrodynamics (QED) the vector and scalar
potentials, four per particle altogether. In SFT there are also
four variables per particle, consisting of two spinors, a radius
and a frequency for each spinor. In SFT after specifying the
fields using the two divergence equations, the remaining two
Maxwell curl equations provide only three scalar equations; we
need a fourth equation per particle. This is supplied for the
case of the atomic EM self-fields as a balance of the Lorentz
forces between any two charged particles and this converts into a
pair of virial equations where the magnetic and electric forces
are in dynamic balance. Note that the four variables per particle
within QED, the potential and vector potentials, require
conversion to the E- and H-fields post-solution ( Electromagnetic
Analysis System EMAS
<http://www.diel.univaq.it/research/?id_area=10 &id_subarea=43 >
for example does this for the EM fields having solved for the
potentials).

In nuclear physics, the strong nuclear interaction requires the
mathematics of QCD to solve for particle states. Like QED, the
solution is given as a probability density. These solutions are
governed by the uncertainty principle. We can view the
uncertainty principle as nothing more than a criterion of
accuracy due to the quantum mechanical method of solution and
that classical fields are used at atomic dimensions. Part of the
procedure of QFT is a 'coupling' of the centre-of-motion field
variables that are decoupled in Maxwell's classical equations.
This 'smears' the field solution; the centre-of-motion E- and
H-fields being intertwined numerically. So with high-energy
physics, as with QED, the probability densities are as good as we
can get; our 'observables' are unable to untangle the true atomic
fields. As with QED, the computations require lengthy 'random
walk' simulations on large supercomputers. A discretized version
of QCD suitable for numerical calculations is called Lattice QCD
<h ttp://www.unifiedph
ysics.com/The%20discretized%20version%20of%20QCD%20is%20called%20Lattice%20QCD.>.
This lattice numerically seeks the energy profile that constrains
our equations to obey the known laws governing them including
gauge symmetries that apply.

"It took nearly a year to do the calculations, but when the
computer finally disgorged the numbers, physicists had for the
first time extracted from theory predictions of the ratios of the
masses of eight subatomic particles. These computed,
theoretically derived ratios differ from experimentally observed
values by less than 6 percent." Ivars Peterson
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/q1/quantumch.asp> In SFT we do
NOT assume anything apart from the spinorial (rotating vector)
forms for the motion of the fields; the positions and velocities
of the interacting photons also have the shape of a spinor
(rotating vector). These periodically rotating fields are assumed
since the solution must be a self-field and self-propagating. The
fields in SFT cause the motions of the particles which in turn
cause the field motions; any two particles and their interacting
fields are thus joined 'at the hip' so to speak. The
(mathematical) trick is to suggest a field form suitable for the
observed forces. In strong nuclear SFT it is observed to be six
variables or 'flavours' of quark: up, down, charm, strange, top
and bottom; while the gluon fields have three 'colours': red,
green, and blue. It is found that the six variables are
consistent with there being three spinorial motions per
sub-nuclear particle, and not two as with the EM forces, while
there are now three types of interactions possible correlating to
the two types of elemental charge, positive and negative,
associated with the EM forces.

DIRAC DELTA FUNCTIONS

One final point: the mathematical procedures of SFT can be
applied as a form of potential theory that incorporates the
centre of motion fields; a modern form of quantum field theory
that in principle goes 'beyond quantum'. As we already have a
simpler solution procedure this method's day has not yet arrived,
but indubitably it will come in due time.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tangent bundle geometry and Lagrangian dynamics
    ... yet fully broached the confines of the Physics community and where, ... a lot of subtleties are ... There's a big subtlety in the way the Poisson bracket would generalize ... makes uses 3--forms for and 0-forms for the potentials. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Wrong physics
    ... Subject: Re: Wrong physics ... > depends on the quarks structure of the nucleons. ... the potentials. ... the masses you get out depend on the masses you put in. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: mass of the photon
    ... while SFT's answer is AN ANALYTIC EXPRESSION (actually SFT has two ... mathematics SFT and QFT. ... model of physics than QFT. ... photon as having two sub-particles that the difficulty vanishes before ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: maxwells eqns and self-fields
    ... the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays. ... actually the SFT method is quite straightforward, and follows QFT quite ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: mass of the photon
    ... while SFT's answer is AN ANALYTIC EXPRESSION (actually SFT has two ... mathematics SFT and QFT. ... What does your CRAP have to do with physics? ... The Sun would probably need to be ...
    (sci.physics)