Electric charge is a concept established for electrified macroscopic
bodies, in the nineteenth century. This idea is still today accepted
and this concept is extrapolated for particles, as the electron, which
were only verified experimentally in the last decade of the mentioned
century, when the electromagnetism it was already systematized by
Maxwell.

A lot of experiences, accomplished in the twentieth century,
demonstrated that the electron presents behaviors anomalous and not
compatible with the Maxwell's theory. The discrepancies between theory
and experimentation link intimately with the fact of admitting that the
electron generates and suffers effects of Coulomb's fields. The
Rutherford's works and of your team are very clear at this respect.
The "spin" phenomenon, not foreseen by the theory of Maxwell for common
electric charges, was incorporate as a "ad hoc" hypothesis, for
elementary particles, in a new theory that tried to drive away some of
the ghosts that ventured at to commit Maxwell's theory.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect is not also compatible with the pure and simple
statement that the electron has an electric charge of the same type of
that present in the macroscopic bodies.

Then we could think that the electron has "something plus",
or "something less" or, still, "something different" than a classic
electric charge. Most of the physicists admits that the electron has
electric charge, soon they should explain the "something plus", at to
justify those phenomena. To that seems, they make this by modern
physics. I say that the electron has "something different" and it
generates a different field that only assumes the Coulomb's field
aspect when together with other electrons that participate in the
constitution of an electric charge.

I developed a theory, in 1993, with the purpose of explaining the
paradoxes observed with the electron and also of to justify by what
reason the electron doesn't satisfy the Maxwell's theory. Through the
experimental data thoroughly known and observed at laboratory, I
deduced 4 hypotheses. One of these hypotheses affirms that the electron
(and also the proton) it generates a vectorial field A= w/r and this A
field, in a relatively simple way, it is responsible for all the
electromagnetic phenomena observed. These electrons, when disposed in
the surface of a conductor, with the w vectors perpendicular to the
surface, they continue to generate the A fields.

If we calculate the magnetic field of an electric charge at rest,
through the summation of the rotacional of the A vectors, we will
arrive to a null value. On the other hand, if we calculate
the "translacional" summation of vector A (a concept that I define with
the theory), we arrived at a Coulombian electric field in the exterior
of the conductor and at a non-Coulombian field inside the conductor.
This inside field will probably exercise on electrons an electric
effect similar at the magnetic Aharonov-Bhom effect.

The sum of the translacional is not the same thing that the
translacional of the sum. Therefore, I cannot add all the A's for, soon
after, to apply the translacional, what could be made for the
calculation of the rotacional. I would say then that the vector A, of
each electron, is not a electromagnetic potential vector of the same
type of that studied in classic electromagnetism. In spite of, the sum
of all A vectors of the electrons contained in an electric charge
(conductor loaded of electricity) can be thought as one of the possible
electromagnetic potential vector of the electromagnetic gauge versions.
I also remind that any likeness among A or w and the "spin" is not mere
coincidence.

When Maxwell systematized the electromagnetism, it was believed that the
electromagnetic properties were due to the existence of an electric
fluid, that was distributed on the surface of a conductor (electric
charge) or traveling in a conductor (electric current). Maxwell leaves
this very clear in your Treatise [1891, "A Treatise on Electricity &
Magnetism", third edition, Dover Puclications Inc., New York], where he
proposes little importance at be given for the disputes on if there
would be an only electric fluid or two (Theory of One Fluid or Theory
of Two Fluids). In many chapters he assumes the electric fluid model,
something that today we know not to exist, and I exemplify with one of
your sentences found in the Art. 245 (part II, chapter II): "This
follows at once from the doctrine which is asserted in this treatise,
that electricity obeys the same condition of continuity as an
incompressible fluid".

This doesn't depreciate in anything Maxwell's electromagnetism but it is
clear for us that we should not assume that the elementary particles
should act in way similar at the macroscopic objects that found the
theory. Thanks to this fallacy the physicists arrived to the
incompatibilities of the beginning of the twentieth century. On top of
this fallacy an absurd physics grew. The mistake would have been the
same if we tried to endow the molecules of water of the properties
observed for the elements of volume of the mechanics of the fluids.

For more details, read: The electron equation and electromagnetism -- A
new unifying electromagnetic theory (Published in Integração:III(11)286-
304, 1997) em www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/9378/electron.html

Regards
Alberto Mesquita Filho
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/9378/

--
Alberto
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/9378

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.