I Adhere to Foundations of Theoretical Physics

Home Contact Me

 


Readers may infer from the title of my home page that I'm another example of a trouble-maker who presents apparent paradoxes aiming to show that foundations of contemporary physics, like special relativity and quantum mechanics, are wrong. The purpose of this page and of the publications linked to it, is to prove that this kind of impression is completely wrong. For this reason I mention here some of my articles belonging to two sets. One set consists of articles showing that I've solved some existing problems in theoretical physics and that the solutions are completely within the concensus. The second set consists of articles where I protect established physical theories. ("Ordinary" papers that I've published are not mentioned herein.)


Consensus Compatible Solutions of Theoretical Problems

  1. A serious problem in electrodynamics has been swept under the rug. For reading a relevant discussion, click here.

  2. W. Shockley and R. P. James published in 1967 a paper which apparently shows problems with linear momentum conservation of an electromagnetic system. Soon afterwards, S. Coleman and J. H. Van Vleck have proved that there should be no such problem. The notion of "Hidden Momentum" was used to denote the missing quantity. Other people followed Shockley and James, and constructed alternative illustrations of the phenomenon. However, the problem of the actual physical form of the "hidden momentum" remained unsettled. In 1995, R. H. Romer presented the problem and his paper also contains references to previous articles discussing this issue. I've become aware of this problem after reading Romer's paper, solved it and published a paper entitled: "Exposing 'hidden momentum'". This paper proves that the "hidden momentum" is a mechanical momentum associated with the moving charges that create the magnetic field. Thus, this work proves that special relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics are self-consistent theories.

    References to the above mentioned articles are listed below

    W. Shockley and R. P. James, Phys. Rev. Lett., 18, 876 (1967).

    S. Coleman and J. H. Van Vleck, Phys. Rev., 171, 1370 (1968).

    R. H. Romer, Am. J. Phys., 63, 777 (1995).

    E. Comay, Am. J. Phys., 64, 1028 (1996).

  3. A paper that shows how Lorentz transformations work on "Hidden Momentum" can be seen here.

  4. Students who have studied classical electrodynamics are familiar with the Lienard-Wiechert 4-potentials and with their associated fields. These fields are used for a clear distinction between velocity fields and acceleration fields. The former are independent of the charge's acceleration whereas the later depend on it. Similarly, radiation fields are associated with acceleration. Thus, one may think that acceleration fields and radiation fields are identical. The following example proves that this idea is incorrect. Consider a closed loop made of a superconducting material and an electric current that flows along this loop. Now assume that this kind of device can be constructed within the framework of classical electrodynamics. The system is time independent. Therefore, no radiation is emitted from it. However, individual electrons moving along the loop do accelerate. This simple example shows an acceleration without radiation. Therefore, radiation fields and acceleration fields are not identical.

    A self-consistent definition of radiation fields is shown in the following link. The paper proves that radiation fields really differ from acceleration fields. In particular, acceleration fields are a single-particle property whereas radiation fields depend on the entire system of charges.

    E. Comay, Am.J. Phys. 65, 862 (1997).

  5. A discussion of the 4/3 problem.

    Let us examine the energy-momentum 4-vector of a motionless charge and its electric field. Performing a Lorentz boost, one finds these quantities in another reference frame. It turns out that the calculation shows a factor 4/3 which multiplies the electromagnetic momentum. An explanation of this point and a proof that special relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics are self-consistent theories can be found in the following article together with some references to earlier publications.

    E. Comay, Lorentz Transformations of Electromagnetic Systems and the 4/3 Problem, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung A 46, 377 (1991).

  6. The following paper shows how a regular energy-momentum tensor can be constructed for a pointlike charged particle. The discussion relies on fundamental principles and yields expressions that are free of infinite quantities. See Int. J. Theor. Phys. 30, 1473 (1991) or click here .

  7. Another energy-momentum tensor problem is solved in an article that has been published recently (February 2018). For details, click here .


Papers Protecting Fundamental Physical Theories

  1. Here is a paper explaining why Special Relativity is an Excellent Theory.

    E. Comay, The Special Theory of Relativity is an Excellent Theory, Electromagnetic Phenomena, 16, 22 (2006)

  2. Here is a paper protecting Dirac's opinion on quantum mechanics: E. Comay, Apeiron 12, No 1, 26 (2005).

    Note the discussion of the Dirac equation in Section 2. In particular, see the five conclusions beginning on p. 31. This section proves that for the Dirac equation everything is self-consistent and that no additional assumption is required for proving this issue.

  3. Protecting Maxwellian Electrodynamics and Special Relativity.

    More than a decade ago M. W. Evans has begun to publish a series of papers claiming that a circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation contains, beside the transverse fields, a longitudinal magnetic field. He has apparently convinced the Editor of Foundations of Physics and Foundations of Physics Letters that he is an exceptionally important physicist. Thus, these journals have published dozens of Evans' papers that harp on the same string. Obviously, Evans' claim contradicts well known properties of Maxwellian electrodynamics. In particular, textbooks prove that radiation fields are transverse.

    Realizing this state of affairs, I've decided to present specific proofs showing that Evans' claim is inconsistent with Maxwellian electrodynamics and with special relativity as well. Different proofs are included in the following articles together with references to some of Evans' publications.

    E. Comay, Maxwell Equations Versus the Longitudinal Magnetic Field of the Photon, Physica B222, 150 (1996).


    E. Comay, Comment on the Longitudinal Magnetic Field of Circularly Polarized Electromagnetic Waves, Chem. Phys. Lett. 261, 601 (1996).


    E. Comay, Relativity Versus the Longitudinal Magnetic Field of the Photon, Found. Phys. Lett., 10, 245 (1997).


    E. Comay, Unphysical properties of the longitudinal-phase-free magnetic field of circularly polarized electromagnetic waves, Physica A, 242, 522 (1997).



  4. Other Articles

    The Lorentz-Dirac equation.

    E. Comay, Solutions of the Lorentz-Dirac equation in the ultrarelativistic domain     J. Phys. A, 29, 2111 (1996).