Electrons Emitting Electromagnetic Information (e.m.i)

Alberto Mesquita Filho

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Static electromagnetic fields
4. Stationary electromagnetic fields
5. Electrons emitting electromagnetic radiation
6. The energy of electromagnetic radiations
7. The material component of electromagnetic radiations
8. Bibliography

6. The energy of electromagnetic radiations

As a rule, it is accepted that “an accelerated electric charge emits electromagnetic radiation”. It is exactly at this point that we find some conditions which allow the main disagreements, controversies, unsatisfactions, absurds and paradoxes which followed the evolution of physics in the 20th century. In a previous paper (MESQUITA, 1993) we discussed the conditions under which modern physics “accepts” or “allows” the non-emission of radiation by an accelerated electron. Let us now examine the other side of the question: the conditions under which the amount of radiation emitted by an accelerated electron is in conflict with the main current theories, especially in terms of the so-called “radiation reaction” [McDONALD,1988b and WOODWARD, 1998].

The radiation reaction would be the strength suffered by the particle when emitting radiation in a specific sense and direction, which characterizes a loss in term of mass and/or energy by the particle. Therefore, we usually call radiation reaction the variation in energetic content of the emitting particle due to the total emission even if the latter occurs in several directions at the same time. A particular case, although of a different nature, would be the phenomenon generating the classical radiation pressure, which shows that light, under certain conditions, is charged with measurable energy. A recent discussion by McDONALD (1998a) shows the physical and linguistic meanings of the terms now presented, besides analyzing other nomenclatures used by several authors through the years.

Experiments have shown and demonstrated ¾since Lorentz’s studies between 1892 and 1903¾ that an electron, even if it emits some radiation, does not lose any energy, that is, it apparently does not suffer a radiation reaction when is subdued to a uniform acceleration (for example, on a constant electric field). On the other hand, conditions under which a modification in the energetic contents of the emitting agent was experimentally shown coincide with those ones in which Lorentz’s ideas foresee such variation, that is, those in which the emitting agent is subdued to an acceleration variation, that is, to a non-constant acceleration during the process. I accept this fact as an theoretical-experimental evidence that there are some radiations with an apparently void content and made up exclusively by e.m.i. What identifies them with other radiations and not simply with a mere e.m.i. emission is the fact they express themselves through changing fields, such as the ones already seen, and not reducible to static or stationary fields when analyzed by their behavior in inertial referents. Alternative hypotheses can be found in recent revisions (McDONALD, 1998a and 1998b; and WOODWARD, 1998). As a rule, these are hypotheses with an ad hoc character and fanciful ultimately expressing the a priori acceptance of fields as extensions of matter.

The most intriguing example that of the electron subdued to a constant centripetal acceleration in modulus (uniform variation in the direction of acceleration around a central point).

The study of electric charges in spinning platforms seems to be in accordance with the ideas proposed by Lorentz for the electron. The emission of radiation by the electrons constituting the electric charge occurs at the same time as the radiation reaction in the retraining of the platform. Curiously ¾and something denying  theoretical expectations, according to STIRNIMAN (1998)¾, if the platform has two equal charges with opposed signals simulating a condenser, the radiation reaction does not occur. Probably ¾and up till now in an unknown way¾ the presence of one of the charges affects the energetic emission of the other, reducing it to zero and bewildering people who study electromagnetism.

From the point of view of the new theory we are now discussing, there is nothing strange about this. The phenomenon simply expresses the elementary behaviour going on in the microcosmos and intimately related with the macroscopic effect known as electric induction. The electromagnetic field A of the electron (see MESQUITA, 1993 and 1997) is manifested by three effects: electric, magnetic and inductive; and electric induction is nothing but a particular case, observable in electric charges, of the effect associated with the inductive field or torque fields t acting upon electrons.

Picture 7 shows as electrons are disposed in a spherical conductor when they make up an electric charge. If the conductor is attached to a revolving platform as shown in picture 8, the inertia associated to the cohesion of the electrons will try to spin the whole in relationship to the conductor and in the opposite sense to the platform spinning. The conductor, on its turn provokes a hauling of the electrons which is quite similar to the one produced by gigantic cylinders plunged into different liquids (for example, Couette viscousimeters). Thanks to this phenomenon, which does not differ at all from a viscous process, the conductor is subdued to a torque transmitted to the platform and provoking its curbing.

If the revolving platform contains two equal charges with opposed signals, the inductive effects field now will have electrons and protons in pairs, as shown by picture 9 (the positive charge is a little more complex; however, the emission of its structure does not invalidate the argumentation). Due to the fact that the particles of a charge remain fixed and imprisoned in relationship to the structure of another charge, and because conductors are mutually in repose, in this case we do not have the viscous hauling and, therefore, the curbing reaction does not occur, which is in accordance with what has been experimentally verified. In this case (picture 9) the particles generating the electromagnetic field remain still in relationship to the platform, and it is possible to conceive for each particle a non-inertial referent in which it, when it spins, provokes a stationary field similar to the one presented in picture 4.

It is interesting to notice that the processes are exclusively differentiated by a thermodynamic character. In the first case (picture 8) we are a viscous hauling and the radiation reaction is related an irreversible process. In the second case (picture 9) there is also a hauling, not mediated by the electromagnetic field and different from the previous one because it does not present either a radiation reaction or something that might suggest the irreversibility of the process. This confirms the hypothesis that thermodynamically irreversible phenomena are followed by the emission of particles with mass and energy, the entropins (MESQUITA, 1995b). The relationship between the radiation reaction and the irreversibility has already been suggested by SCHOTT (1912-5, quoted by McDONALD, 1998a).

.

.

Next

---