Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / April 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

question on wheeler feynman absorber theory

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
babaluyee@gmail.com - 18 Apr 2008 18:52 GMT
In their original paper the authors derive a phase between the
acceleration of the source and the advanced wave at the source coming
from the absorber. This phase is needed in order to conclude that the
reaction is proportional to the time derivative of the acceleration
rather than the acceleration itself.

To arrive at this phase however the authors argue that while the speed
of the retarded wave is reduced by interacting with intervening medium
between the source and the absorber particle in question, the speed of
the advanced wave on its way from the absorber particle to the source
is the speed of light and does not interact with intervening
particles. The reason for this they say is that unlike the retarded
wave which they treat as the combination of the primary retarded wave
and the secondary waves that come about from the interactions with
intervening particles, the advanced wave is an ELEMENTARY interaction
between the absorber particle in question and the source and therefore
does not interact with other particles. What is this difference
between the treatment of the advanced and retarded wave motivated by?
Why is one considered elementary and the other not? Isn't this a time
asymmetric assumption? If the answer to the last question is yes then
why do we need to blame the time asymmetric dominance of diverging
waves over converging waves on asymmetric initial conditions why not
also blame it on this asymmetric treatment of advanced and retarded
waves?

Help would be greatly appreaciated!
Thanks
Juan R. González-Álvarez - 19 Apr 2008 17:48 GMT
babaluyee wrote on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:52:42 +0000:

> In their original paper the authors derive a phase between the
> acceleration of the source and the advanced wave at the source coming
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> other particles. What is this difference between the treatment of the
> advanced and retarded wave motivated by?

Because otherwise the theory would predict unobserved phenomena. E.g.
instead the total force

F_ret + R

with R the damping force you would obtain

F_adv - R

> Why is one considered
> elementary and the other not?

/Ad hoc/ Their theory does not explain that. They argued explanation
would be second law thermodynamics.

> Isn't this a time asymmetric assumption?

Yes.

> If the answer to the last question is yes then why do we need to blame
> the time asymmetric dominance of diverging waves over converging waves
> on asymmetric initial conditions why not also blame it on this
> asymmetric treatment of advanced and retarded waves?

Both approaches are blamed at this point.

Signature

http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.