"Fictitious particles are continuously emitted in all directions by electrical charges. They keep on moving indefinitely in straight lines with constant speed, even through material bodies." Further... "The action undergone by a charge depends uniquely on the disposition, velocity, etc., of these particles in its immediate surroundings." In his preliminary work, Ritz dealt with emission particles only. They did not suffer absorptions or deviations in their paths when acting on charged bodies. He knew that his theory was not compatible with Fizeau's experiments on the entrainment of light, but he died before he could finish revising his theory. He died at age 31. Author's note: Because of absorption and re-emission of electromagnetic radiation by charges in transparent media [Ewald and Oseen's* extinction theorem(s)]. Ritz's Galilean relativity ideas (c + v) may be applicable only for the microscopic realm, i.e. for distances less than .03 cm at standard sea level atmospheric conditions or in outer space where the extinction length has been calculated to be on the order of one light year.[2] *Orginally given as "Oseen and Oswald's extinction theorem." These separate studies are related to, but are not directly applicable to Ritz's problem. J.G. Fox[2] used Tolman's more appropriate extinction hypothesis [2a] to ammend Ritz's theory. [R.S.F. 09 Aug 2003.] It turns out that Tolman's version of extinction strictly dealt with light reflecting from a mirror. Tolman appears to have believed that the Earth's atmosphere exerted no extinction effects on light. [R.S.F. 23 May 2007.] Ritz's emission particles were so numerous that he could represent them with continuum mathematics. He did not address the mechanics of "how" attraction and repulsion work. He interestingly did say, however, that if charges were allowed to spin he could explain gravity as a side effect of the spins. [3] QED addresses emissions and absorptions, but these are statistical expedients and for simplicity's sake tend to be portrayed as "one-shot" affairs. (That's not exactly the right way to say it, but Feynman diagrams tend to make things seem that way.) The model I work with is conceptually situated between Ritz's continuum model and QED. You could call it sub-quantum electrodynamics. I opted to add scattering events to the model so as to offer an explanation of attraction and repulsion. Scattering events may not be necessary, but we do have to have a difference in the amount of momentum transferred depending on whether like-charged or unlike-charged emitters and absorbers are involved. I postulate the existence of two types of sub-quantum particles, one type for each kind of charge. Positrinos and negatrinos (See the historical notes which immediately precede the References.) These particles are not what we would think of as little pieces of charge but it is the result of their actions that gives us our concept of charge. We can think of them as neutrino-like. They will be like Dudley's neutrino sea, but perhaps on a more finely grained scale. . . . These are the primary Emission - Absorption - Scattering (EAS) postulates. Protons emit positrinos. Electrons emit negatrinos. Protons absorb negatrinos. Electrons absorb positrinos. Protons scatter positrinos. Electrons scatter negatrinos. Absorption events can be thought of as supplying the energy (and material, if we go that far) to drive the emission process. I call it a GIGO function, Garbage In - Garbage Out. Maybe charged particles perform "twist flips" in conjunction with the absorption/emission process.

If we look at a time average depiction of the emission patterns for a proton and electron which are in close proximity, we can draw concentric circles around each charge to represent cross-sections of equipotental surfaces. These circles represent effects of emission fluxes averaged over a time period that is much longer than the emission repetition intervals. The fraction of the proton's positrinos that are absorbed by the electron (and don't come out the other side) will produce a "down wind" shadow-zone which will appear as a wedge-like indentation in the two dimensional drawing. In like manner, negatrinos that are absorbed by the proton produce a shadow- zone behind the proton.

These shadow-zones produce fractional reductions in repulsion potential of the charge pair with respect to other charges. (With the charges in a constant state of motion the reductions get smeared about, but their effects do not go to zero.) They are contrary to the superposition principle for electric charges, but the charges in this model are postulated to have finite sized operational surfaces and can be considered as being "opaque" to the passage of positrinos and negatrinos. The shadow-zones are postulated to be the electromagnetic cause of gravitation. No gravitons, just positrino and negatrino flux shadows. (Inertial effects have to be dealt with too.) Even though Ritz did not like the idea of ether, his, and the EAS particles actually constitute a gaseous ether, with electrons and protons as its sources, sinks, and "containment" system. Now, as to why scattering was added to the model. From billiard ball physics we know that for particles having the same mass, elastic collisions deliver twice the momentum transfer (impulsive punch) as do inelastic collisions. When a proton emits a positrino (an inelastic process) or when a negatrino is absorbed by a proton (also an inelastic process) the impulse to the emitter or the absorber respectively is one half that of when a positrino elastically scatters with a proton. The same goes for a negatrino being emitted by an electron or a positrino being absorbed by an electron as compared to a negatrino scattering with an electron. Emission recoils are equal and opposite to absorption impulses. Here, I assume that the electrons and protons are moving slowly with respect to the speed of the positrinos and negatrinos, which is more or less the speed of light.

In the EAS model, all charges repel, but unlike charges repel each other half as much as like charges. Thus, they tend to get pushed together. This togetherness function is called attraction but really it's the electrodynamic environment impelling unlike charges closer together.

If we think of a universe consisting of only one electron and only one proton ... would they move together or move apart?

. . . I say, they would move away from one another. I said that to say this: We have no isolated charges anywhere in the observable universe. There is a kind of electrodynamic Mach's principle (remote charges set the stage for what happens locally) that enters into every interaction of electrical charges. What is missing from the Feynman diagrams for, so called attraction, is the effect of the external environment on the electron and positron Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Send comments/questions to Robert Fritzius at fritzius@bellsouth.net Top