Let’s look into this electromagnetic momentum issue in further detail…
Say we want to show this “electromagnetic momentum” experimentally, by applying the common suppositions of relativistic electrodynamics to the circumstances inherent in the dynamics of the discharge of a single filament “rail gun”.
The special theory of relativity expresses that traveling “field energy” possesses momentum, and mass, called “electromagnetic mass”. In the case of such an “electromagnetic mass” encountering a copper wire, it is held that when the “field energy” strikes the metal and penetrates towards the center of the wire, that its electromagnetic propagation is arrested, and it gradually loses its momentum.
Field theory requires that the energy from the current source flies through the air (or vacuum) and enters each section of the wire from the outside. This radially incoming energy is then supposedly responsible for setting up the electromotive force which drives the current against the resistance of the metal. (Feynman remarks here, “So our ‘crazy’ theory says that the electrons are getting their energy to generate heat because of the energy flowing into the wire from the field outside.”.)
Given that momentum must be conserved in this situation, we are required to provide a momentum transfer mechanism from the “electromagnetic mass”, to the mass comprising the copper wire. This can only be properly accomplished when the electromagnetic mass acting on the wire has a momentum which is subject to Newton’s third law of equal and opposite reactions, since we are looking at momentum, per se.
In this situation, relativistic electromagnetism predicts that the Lorentz force will accelerate the railgun armature, while the local reaction force on the incoming electromagnetic mass, will act so as to bring the electromagnetic energy velocity of “c”, down to the velocity of the copper metal. The reaction force to the applied Lorentz force, which stops the incoming energy, becomes the field recoil force, or magnetic pressure, which results in the acceleration of the railgun “shot”.
With me so far?
As Feynman explains, the Poynting vector, S = E cross H, of the traveling electromagnetic energy, divided by the square of the velocity of light, represents the momentum flow density, M_d, given by
M_d = 1/c^2 S
Arresting this energy-momentum flow within the metal, causes the Lorentz force, which in turn, causes our magnetic field pressure, according to the theory.
The above is the local action mechanism upon which Einstein insisted in order to do away with, what was for him, “spooky action at a distance”. Einstein also provided here, his famous energy equation, which applies to the generation of magnetic pressure in this situation. If we associate our “electromagnetic mass”, which is traveling with the velocity of light, with the energy of that mass, then we have the famous
E = mc^2.
Calling the mass of the railgun projectile M, which is leaving the muzzle of our railgun with a velocity V, then momentum conservation predicts that,
MV = mc^2
The actual implications of the above “local force” mechanism are best understood by examining actual experimental data. For example, in 1984, Deis, et.al., reported an actual railgun shot, in which 16.3 MJ of stored electrical energy was applied to accelerate a 0.317 kg projectile to a measured velocity of 4200 m/s.
Under the action of the localized Lorentz force, therefore, the projectile acquired a momentum of 1331 kg-m/s. By the above equation, momentum conservation predicts that the projectile has been struck by at least 4.44 e-6 kg of “electromagnetic mass” traveling with the velocity of light (2.98 e8 m/s). On the basis of Einstein’s famous energy law, it is demanded that the total energy which travels between the rails of the railgun, from the energy source, to the railgun armature, must be 3.99 e5 MJ.
The results of the application of the Einstein equation to the above situation result in a figure which is 24, 478 times the actual measured energy delivered to the railgun.
It must be concluded from this, that the magnetic force on the railgun projectile cannot possibly have been produced by a “field-energy” impact. This reveals that there is a serious and obvious flaw in the theory of relativistic electromagnetism. Energy is not conserved.
Let’s look at the same situation from the momentum perspective:
The kinetic energy which the above projectile of mass M and velocity V has acquired, is of course,
E = 1/2 MV^2
In our above example, this equation calculates out as 0.559 MJ.(Showing that the energy efficiency of the Deis et.al. railgun experiment was actually less than 4%.) (Much of the wasted energy is presumed to have been dissipated in the form of Joule heating of the circuit elements and frictional losses between the projectile and the rails of the railgun.)
If the energy absorbed by the projectile from the field had been equal to the energy actually acquired by the projectile, then, from E = mc^2, the “electromagnetic mass” would have been 6.21 e-12 kg. Multiplying this by the velocity of light gives us a field momentum in this situation of 1.86 e-3 kg-m/s. This number is far smaller than the actually measured projectile momentum, which was, again, 1331 kg-m/s. Momentum is not conserved.
From the forgoing, it can easily be seen that if energy is conserved, momentum is not. And if momentum is conserved, energy is not conserved.
This is the greatest inconsistency of relativistic field theory.
A similar problem arises in relativistic quantum mechanics (also known as quantum electrodynamics, or QED). As I pointed out yesterday, QED relies on the exchange of so-called “virtual photons”. For example, to describe the mutual repulsion of electrons, QED teaches that the repulsion is due to the exchange of “virtual photons”. That is to say, that each electron, according to QED, must spontaneously and constantly, emit a continuous stream of “virtual photons”.
As these “virtual particles” of light are held to contain “electromagnetic mass”, they must perforce exert a recoil force on the electron which emits each virtual photon, and an impact force, in turn, on the absorbing electron. (These are supposedly the locally generated forces of special relativity.) Since no external agency is brought forth to cause these energetic photonic emissions, these “virtual” photons clearly and obviously violate energy conservation. (As is well known.)
This is considered to be permissible as long as the so-called “life” of the “virtual photon” is so short that its energy is subject to the uncertainty principle of QM. (Sounds like an excuse to me.) Further, since it has been experimentally proved by a Nobel prize winning experiment that uncertainty is not a valid principle (Dehmelt), and since it has been shown by me that uncertainty does not apply in any regard to any monochromatic beam of photons, uncertainty itself appears to be on shaky ground. Further, I have devised an experiment which relies on subquantum imaging, which will clearly be able to demonstrate, or clearly falsify, the assertions of quantum uncertainty. (I already know what the answer is, but let’s be fair about all this and actually do the experiments…) Therefore, invoking quantum uncertainty in this situation of QED, leaves us on very shaky ground.
As I’ve said before, relativity is broken. It appears to me that the only way to deal with these kinds of situations is to invoke subquantum particle theories. And so away with such nonsensical proposals as QED, which nobody seems to understand properly in the first place. (Probably because it’s wrong in the first place.) “Spooky action at a distance” is actually REAL, and it is due to the activities of the superluminal subquantum particles, in my view.
Many thanks to Graneau’s lovely book called Newtonian Electrodynamics for providing many of these arguments.