This Â
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
The matter of causality was resolved some time ago. I have added material and references to reflect that. The Wheeler-Feynman time-symmetric theory is more important than people realize. It was a precursor to Feynman's quantum electrodynamics. It vindicated the Breit equation which has been used with success in relativistic quantum chemistry. However, the Lamb shift necessitated a self-energy term as demonstrated by Hans Bethe. Feynman and Bethe had many an intense discussion over that issue but there is still no other way to explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.135 ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
why should we accept
E tot = the average ( and not the sum) of the retarded and advanced waves
and what is meant by "your" universe where E free = 0 and why should I accept that the difference between the sums of advanced and retarded waves are equal.
regarding: the "phenomenon of the absorption from all the particles of the universe of the radiation emitted by each single particle."
can we be sure that all radiation is absorbed by particles? at this moment not all the radiation from the big bang has been absorbed ( because it continues to be detected ). can we be sure that there will ever be a time in which all radiation has been absorbed. What about radiation absorbed by black holes. There is no symmetry there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidseed ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This line in the article: "electromagnetic waves have, in general, two possible solutions: a retarded solution and an advanced one." Yeah, retarded is the appropriate word, but to someone new to the subject, it will seem like it's saying "a stupid one and a correct one." Is there another word we can use instead of retarded? -- Goodbye Galaxy ( talk) 14:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Should "Then, if you consider that in your universe holds the relation" actually read "Then, if you consider that if your universe holds the relation" -- the word "if" instead of "in?" The sentence is stating that when you consider the supposition that the quantitative results are zero, the following holds true, so the word "if" may be what the OP desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Feynman and Wheeler, in considering the whole Universe as both emitter and absorber, certainly considered the Hubble Constant expansion of the Universe, yet I don't see Hubble in their proposed solutions. For some reason -- probably because I'm a dimwit -- I expected to see expansion terms in the equations. So I have to ask, are equations that include Hubble missing from the article?
If we were in a static, non-expanding Universe, the retarded and advanced wave would have the same distances to traverse to encompass the volume of space/time, yet in an expanding Universe, the accummulative absorber universally is undergoing an expansion, the distances that the advanced wave must travel to reach every absorber is increasing. The retarded wave could encompas the Universe in less time than the advanced wave because the volume of the Universe is less for the retarded wave, hence T-symmetry is broken for electromagnetic wave propagation and causality exists as humans perceive it.
Just seems to me that expansion solutions are missing from the article some how, yet that's probably because I don't understand what it is that Feynman-Wheeler atr proposing. Damotclese ( talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
the section on Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity says it has been challenged by observation but gives no example so I tagged it as needing a reference. RJFJR ( talk) 00:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
When reading this I freely admit that I am absolutely in over my head. Having said this, I genuinely believe that EVERY lede should be phrased as directly and clearly and humbly as possible. Though I do not expect to grasp the fullness of this theory, I propose (hope) that the language of the below two sentences, from the first paragraph, can be rephrased in a way that is less jarring and ego-crushing.
Indeed, there is no apparent reason for the time-reversal symmetry breaking, which singles out a preferential time direction and thus makes a distinction between past and future. A time-reversal invariant theory is more logical and elegant.
I particularly dislike being scolded by a sentence that begins: "Indeed, there is no apparent reason ...".
With a year between question and answer, I realize that I am not exactly in the most dynamic part of WP. I shall attempt to wait patiently.
In case you care how I have been so sidetracked: -- No original research -- led to -- Identifying reliable sources -- to -- Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman! -- to -- .
Gracias GeeBee60 ( talk) 03:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A good description of the motivations behind this theory can be found from Mehra (1994) The beat of a different drum : the life and science of Richard Feynman. Chapter 5: Action-at-a-distance in electrodynamics: the Wheeler-Feynman theory ( archive.org) Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 05:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
"Feynman and Bethe had an intense discussion over that issue, and eventually Feynman himself stated that self-interaction is needed to correctly account for this effect" cites Gleick's biography. There is no such 'stated', but more important the section in the book is about Feynmann's QED not Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Mgolden96 I appreciate that you are trying to improve this article. However adding the action formula without explanatory text or references to the introduction is not an improvement.
Please move the content in to the article with enough context and reference so someone can understand how it is related to the theory. Then a short summary can go in the intro.
Thanks Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
The matter of causality was resolved some time ago. I have added material and references to reflect that. The Wheeler-Feynman time-symmetric theory is more important than people realize. It was a precursor to Feynman's quantum electrodynamics. It vindicated the Breit equation which has been used with success in relativistic quantum chemistry. However, the Lamb shift necessitated a self-energy term as demonstrated by Hans Bethe. Feynman and Bethe had many an intense discussion over that issue but there is still no other way to explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.135 ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
why should we accept
E tot = the average ( and not the sum) of the retarded and advanced waves
and what is meant by "your" universe where E free = 0 and why should I accept that the difference between the sums of advanced and retarded waves are equal.
regarding: the "phenomenon of the absorption from all the particles of the universe of the radiation emitted by each single particle."
can we be sure that all radiation is absorbed by particles? at this moment not all the radiation from the big bang has been absorbed ( because it continues to be detected ). can we be sure that there will ever be a time in which all radiation has been absorbed. What about radiation absorbed by black holes. There is no symmetry there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidseed ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This line in the article: "electromagnetic waves have, in general, two possible solutions: a retarded solution and an advanced one." Yeah, retarded is the appropriate word, but to someone new to the subject, it will seem like it's saying "a stupid one and a correct one." Is there another word we can use instead of retarded? -- Goodbye Galaxy ( talk) 14:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Should "Then, if you consider that in your universe holds the relation" actually read "Then, if you consider that if your universe holds the relation" -- the word "if" instead of "in?" The sentence is stating that when you consider the supposition that the quantitative results are zero, the following holds true, so the word "if" may be what the OP desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Feynman and Wheeler, in considering the whole Universe as both emitter and absorber, certainly considered the Hubble Constant expansion of the Universe, yet I don't see Hubble in their proposed solutions. For some reason -- probably because I'm a dimwit -- I expected to see expansion terms in the equations. So I have to ask, are equations that include Hubble missing from the article?
If we were in a static, non-expanding Universe, the retarded and advanced wave would have the same distances to traverse to encompass the volume of space/time, yet in an expanding Universe, the accummulative absorber universally is undergoing an expansion, the distances that the advanced wave must travel to reach every absorber is increasing. The retarded wave could encompas the Universe in less time than the advanced wave because the volume of the Universe is less for the retarded wave, hence T-symmetry is broken for electromagnetic wave propagation and causality exists as humans perceive it.
Just seems to me that expansion solutions are missing from the article some how, yet that's probably because I don't understand what it is that Feynman-Wheeler atr proposing. Damotclese ( talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
the section on Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity says it has been challenged by observation but gives no example so I tagged it as needing a reference. RJFJR ( talk) 00:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
When reading this I freely admit that I am absolutely in over my head. Having said this, I genuinely believe that EVERY lede should be phrased as directly and clearly and humbly as possible. Though I do not expect to grasp the fullness of this theory, I propose (hope) that the language of the below two sentences, from the first paragraph, can be rephrased in a way that is less jarring and ego-crushing.
Indeed, there is no apparent reason for the time-reversal symmetry breaking, which singles out a preferential time direction and thus makes a distinction between past and future. A time-reversal invariant theory is more logical and elegant.
I particularly dislike being scolded by a sentence that begins: "Indeed, there is no apparent reason ...".
With a year between question and answer, I realize that I am not exactly in the most dynamic part of WP. I shall attempt to wait patiently.
In case you care how I have been so sidetracked: -- No original research -- led to -- Identifying reliable sources -- to -- Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman! -- to -- .
Gracias GeeBee60 ( talk) 03:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A good description of the motivations behind this theory can be found from Mehra (1994) The beat of a different drum : the life and science of Richard Feynman. Chapter 5: Action-at-a-distance in electrodynamics: the Wheeler-Feynman theory ( archive.org) Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 05:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
"Feynman and Bethe had an intense discussion over that issue, and eventually Feynman himself stated that self-interaction is needed to correctly account for this effect" cites Gleick's biography. There is no such 'stated', but more important the section in the book is about Feynmann's QED not Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Mgolden96 I appreciate that you are trying to improve this article. However adding the action formula without explanatory text or references to the introduction is not an improvement.
Please move the content in to the article with enough context and reference so someone can understand how it is related to the theory. Then a short summary can go in the intro.
Thanks Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)