Home | Up one level | Previous | Next

This article is in four sections.
Emisson-Absorption-Scattering (EAS) Sub-Quantum Physics
EAS Nuclear Glue
EAS Neutron Beta Decay
EAS Mass Excess and Mass Defect

Emission-Absorption-Scattering (EAS)
Sub-Quantum Physics

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
In Russian (gif images)

Installed on 30 Jun 30 1997. - Latest update - 20 May 2011.
Additions or changes are in bold.

Keywords: Attraction, Bremsstrahlung, Push gravity, Repulsion, Stochastic electrodynamics


A modified Ritz emission theory is used to expand our present day ideas about virtual particle theory. It is done in a manner which provides an intuitive interpretation of both repulsion and "attraction" and offers a new insight into the stochastic anisotropic nature of the electrodynamic braking action of bremsstrahlung.

This article was originally presented as an invited talk at the International Conference on Sir Isaac Newton, hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences, at St. Petersburg, Russia, in March of 1993. One half of the funds for the author's trip were provided by Myra Jane DaVault of Dyersburg, TN.

A modified version of the article was presented at the joint meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance and the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division of AAAS at College Station in May 1997.

Newton Repulsion Attraction

This exposition is about a Newtonian interpretation of electrical attraction and repulsion. It is dedicated to the memory of Glenn Donald Bryant, of Starkville Mississippi, who quested for causality in modern physics.

Part 1

Computer Modeling Much of the material will deal with things we cannot measure but the concepts can be modeled on a computer and the statistics from the model's history can be compared to experimental observations. For example, shown here are some results of multiple runs of a program called ELECTRON.BAS, ELECTRON.EXE. This program simulates stochastic electron-proton (e-p) scattering, one electron at a time. Statistics on the changes in momentum and the scattering angles from these runs can be checked against established behavior for actual e-p scattering and the program can be adjusted to more nearly conform to real world averages. It then becomes "predictive" for non-typical events.

I will point out what seems to be a flaw in quantum electrodynamics, (QED) then outline a model of how electricity may work, and will do so in such a manner as to fix the flaw. Finally I will show how the model can be used to explain the braking action of bremsstrahlung.


In quantum electrodynamics it is customary to describe the electrodynamic interactions of charged particles as being brought about by the emission and absorption of momentum carrying virtual photons.

To get an intuitive "feel" for how like charges repel can be fairly straightforward. Let's use a Feymann diagram that shows two electrons interacting to demonstrate this.

The "source" electron (E) emits a virtual photon in the direction of the "absorber" electron (A). In this discussion (maybe not in QED) we can envision a reactive kickback, on the part of the source electron, as the virtual photon is emitted. The virtual photon transits the distance between source and absorber at the speed of light. In the absorption event the virtual photon's momentum is transferred to the absorber, which causes it to begin moving away from the source.

Like Charges
In the case of unlike charges and "attraction" some problems arise. Let's use the same source, as before, and a positron-like absorber. In this simplified approach it would make Paul Dirac unhappy if we used a positron, as shown, without also showing a "liberated" negative energy electron, so we'll pretend that the positive charge is actually a proton with its mass reduced to that of an electron. But let's call it a positron. (This Dirac digression is borrowed from a gentleman at the University of California, Berkeley, who is un-mentioned later.) Unlike Charges

Again, the source electron emits a virtual photon (which, for our purposes, is indistinguishable from that in the first example). The emitting electron should experience the same recoil as in the first example, i.e., it should be in the opposite direction from that of the virtual photon's path, but it isn't. Conservation of momentum is violated. When the virtual photon's momentum is "delivered" to the positron, it (the positron) responds by moving toward (not away from) the source electron. Again, the process, as depicted, violates conservation of momentum.

To me, these violations of conservation of momentum are very problematic. If QED postulates momentum for virtual photons then it should keep its momentum bookkeeping straight.

Push or Pull? Even if I have interpreted this matter improperly, comes the question: (This question was posed by a gentleman from the then developing Super-Conducting Super-Collider, on the internet discussion group sci.physics in 1992.)

"How does the virtual photon know, when it arrives at the absorber, whether to push or to pull?"

He re-stated the question:

"Where, inside the photon, is the information that tells it whether to attract or to repel?"

He was answered by a West Coast physicist: (Both of these gentlemen asked me not to use their names in connection with this presentation.)

"You ask amiss."

He went on to say:

"There is no answer. ... We have amplitudes, and we have cross-sections,... but in the final analysis it is the mathematical product of the particles' electric charges that determines attraction or repulsion."

(Here, I have paraphrased the respondent's comments somewhat. The earlier matter about Dirac is his also.)

I agree with the answer, but I do not like it. QED is primarily mathematically "descriptive" and often does not provide intuitive answers about processes of nature.

If we go back to classical electrodynamics, we do not get an answer either. We have a convention:

Like charges repel


Unlike charges attract.

and that is that.
Repulsion and Attraction

I will provide one possible way of understanding the "why" of attraction and repulsion, and it will be a Newtonian approach.


GRAVITY Impulse - Newton

As an aside to this subject, let me say that, with
respect to gravity, Newton did not like to use the
word "attraction." He preferred the word "impulse.
We don't really know if gravity is a matter of masses pulling on each other or whether they are being pushed towards one another by other, more remote, objects or collections of objects in the universe (via what Hawking calls "their force carrying intermediaries." These intermediaries would be akin to virtual photons. (Dudley's neutrino sea comes to mind.) This is a "push gravity" approach. (Push gravity gets re-invented about every twenty years.) The force carrying intermediaries that get absorbed in the earth should produce a directed shielding effect for other bodies in the vicinity. (This idea lends itself to falsifiable analysis and testing. Perhaps tests can be designed to differentiate between center of mass attraction and solid angle shielding.)

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Send comments/questions to Robert Fritzius at fritzius@bellsouth.net