electromagnetic mass

[AntonioLao]

The peculiarity of the electromagnetic mass remains unsolve. The following article discusses how this was started by Lorentz.

Attachment 238

[AntonioLao]

more related links to the electromagnetic mass
http://www.maxwellsociety.net/PhysicsCorner/Miscellaneous%20Topics/FeynmanParadox.html
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-2/iss-5/vol2no5p21_26.pdf

[Guille]

I believe the most plausible idea of electromagnetic mass would be a re-formulation of QM so that electrons aren't viewed as pont like particles (nor any other particle), so that Lorentz's idea is in peace with QM's math. The other propositions where not very plausible.

[mkirkpatrick]

The peculiarity of the electromagnetic mass remains unsolve. The following article discusses how this was started by Lorentz.

Attachment 238

Antonio,where there is resistance there also arises in the observer of this phenomena, the question, of "other" forces being at work!But in reality there are no other forces? Or more clearly, just energy at play. Maybe some of what we think we see, is the beginning of one rotory action,and the trace eddy, or wake,of another just past?

kind regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

would be a re-formulation of QM

Many theorists including Einstein believed that QM is incomplete. The advancement of quantum field theory still did not satisfy this requirement. But maybe someday someone can set up the formalism to complete QM.

But in reality there are no other forces?

I'm working on an idea of orthogonal forces at the local infinitesimal region of space-time. So far, the formulation makes sense only if these forces are zeros.

[Guille]

Many theorists including Einstein believed that QM is incomplete.

The difference between Einstein and I is that I don't care about a probabilistic universe. The only thing I would change in QM would be the notion of particles, instead of being zero dimensional points, they would have extension.

[AntonioLao]

instead of being zero dimensional points, they would have extension.

When Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga did it according to what you said, the result is infinite energy. But t'Hooft came to the rescue by applying 1st and 2nd renormalization and thus removed all infinities. All four received Nobel Prizes for their efforts.

[Guille]

When Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga did it according to what you said, the result is infinite energy. But t'Hooft came to the rescue by applying 1st and 2nd renormalization and thus removed all infinities. All four received Nobel Prizes for their efforts.

Did they work with lagrangians or hamiltonians? Would there be any significant different between using any of the two?

[AntonioLao]

Did they work with lagrangians or hamiltonians? Would there be any significant different between using any of the two?

I think, they used Lagrangian formalism. The descriptive and operative power of renormalization can be seen in the following:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~blechman/papers/renormalization/
http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Map_docs/rg.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/MSet/Scaling.htm

[Guille]

I think, they used Lagrangian formalism. The descriptive and operative power of renormalization can be seen in the following:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~blechman/papers/renormalization/
http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Map_docs/rg.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/MSet/Scaling.htm

I'll search on the web and do some investigatiosn of my own to see if I can change something about QM if I use hamiltonian formalism.

About renormalization, I understand what it is, but what is the reason of it's aplication? And is there any alternative action in maths, which doesn't do what renormalization does but tries to achieve the same goal?