Some Observations, Considerations and Questions

As a result of this evidence from Transmission Line Experiments¹, some observations, questions and thoughts have arisen, but we don't  know what light is.

1. RF current in an electrically long conductor - acceleration of charge bound to one-wire or two-wire conductors - does not result in significant radiation but can create a low attenuation transmission line. Easy to replicate experiments provide compelling evidence that confirm this.

2. Changes in direction, discontinuities due to either bends or complete reflections, do result in changes in transmission and measurable radiation.

3. The degree of radiation appears to be related to the wave length of the conductor, the column of charge, which precedes the discontinuity.

4. These results suggest a mechanism after the manner of Bremsstrahlung theory as the source of radiation from even common antenna types. This view is in place of the standing near/far field velocity model developed from Maxwell’s equations.

5. When Coulomb performed his experiments he considered the ‘liquid’ he was carefully measuring to be located on the surface of the spheres used with a torsion balance to measure force. He developed analyses² supporting the opinion that uniformly distributed charge on the surface³ could be represented as an equivalent total charge at the sphere’s center. By measuring the force exerted between multiple spheres separated by various spacings he developed an equation, identical in form to Newton’s equation for force between masses, which described the force as a function of distance. He continued experimenting and came to describe the effects as spheres were brought close together where he noted that the charge distribution must no longer be uniformly distributed on their surfaces⁴. However he retained his original Newtonian form with no qualifications, continuing to maintain that the location of the center of charge was at the sphere’s center. This seems to have been a fundamental error which he might have recognized. It resulted in continuance of a distance-squared term in the denominator, as from Newton’s equation, and a mathematical singularity.

6. Years later, James Maxwell’s incorporated Ampere’s, Gauss's, Faraday’s and Coulomb’s equations into a model of 20 quaternion equations. That model inherited Coulomb’s singularity.

7. After Maxwell’s death, Oliver Heaviside adapted Maxwell’s equations using the del operator, ∇, to create the presently accepted four equations so successfully used to describe radiation, what is now called electromagnetic communications or ‘radio’.

8. Einstein and Sachs considered singularities not to be real⁵. Thus, a conventional Maxwell-ian interpretation of radiation using fields and waves, including Heaviside’s, is not admissible in a complete analysis of any real thing.

9. Similarly, the unit of capacitance, the Farad, derived from Coulomb’s equation does not seem to precisely describe anything real⁶.

10. The models for charge and radiation, electron, wave and photon, carry the fundamental problem of singularity of energy for any point source⁷ so do not provide a complete analysis.

11. Today, high energy radiation such as x-rays, is modeled using Bremsstrahlung theory. Acceleration of a current of charge orthogonal to its direction is considered to be a cause of radiation. The similarity seen within these experiments suggests that a better theory, an integrated reconciliation including the situation for the much lower energy radiatio such as from radio frequency antennas, might be possible. Could one be developed that provides a description whereby the energy converted to radiation is accounted for in terms of the momentum and energy of photons or waves, or in some other manner?⁸ Has this already been accomplished?

12. If previous understanding of radiation from an accelerated column of bound charge is wrong, why has use of an incorrect model such as for the Short Dipole, been so effective?

13. Is a different mental model useful? For example, without having any better idea than Coulomb did of what charge is, whether his “liquid” is particle or wave or something else, considering that the drift distance of one element of charge moving 1 Ampere in a long column of 1 mm diameter copper wire is displaced by only ~1% of the radius of an atom, can this ‘current’ better be thought of as a “slight shaking”. In the direction of other nearby charge elements along the column, as from other atoms, the associated momentum and energy is transferred in the direction of the column.

14. We have considered energy traveling along the column to be stored in a non-radiating “near field”. However, when a charge element is accelerated orthogonally – when there is momentum applied in a direction NOT associated with coupling to other charge then energy is transferred to a domain that we have been calling “far-field” radiation.

15. What if spacetime and light are better thought of as different domains?

Fields ...

By inspection, neither Newton’s nor Coulomb’s mathematical formulations reflect our observations when pressed to their extremes. Neither do opposite charges nor two masses, considered as having a point source location, collapse and require infinite force to separate. The mathematics itself breaks and becomes undefined.

Also by inspection from our measurements, we do not observe either masses or charges located at the same single point in space. For mass, we model atoms and sub-atomic particles as still occupying a non-zero volume of spacetime. For charge our modeling is conflicted. The double-slit experiment shows both particle and wave-like attributes attributable to charge.

Although we use the idea of ‘field’, gravitational or electric, to describe forces beyond a spatial limit, here too we are conflicted. We may consider a “force field” to be a description, a mapping, of the force a fictitious, infinitely small test particle would experience at every location in space time, were it present. There seem to be no active observations or models for these kinds of test particles. The oil-drop experiment has charge displaying quantization.

Along with this is the question of the reality of a field. If conservation of energy is to hold, an electric field must be able to store energy⁹. It must have a reality that is more than a description.

This situation is not too different from Michael Faraday’s dilemma. His was a question of whether the pattern that nickel filings made above a magnet was only a description of a field that had no reality or if actual lines existed in space.

& Waves

The concept of waves also has its difficulties. Since the Michelson-Morley experiment there is no medium, no “luminiferous aether” as Maxwell initially expected. Radio and other EM waves were and still are “waves in nothing”.

With the opinions of Einstein and Sachs that singularities cannot be real, any attempt to seek an answer using Coulomb’s equation or any derivative such as Maxwell‘s or Heaviside’s equations, must be considered suspect from the start.

& QED

“the electromagnetic theory predicts the existence of an electromagnetic mass, but it also falls on its face in doing so, because it does not produce a consistent theory—and the same is true with the quantum modifications”¹⁰

Problem with the Short Dipole antenna model

This generates another question when considering theories of radiation from antennas. The short dipole model though commonly used is considered not to apply for dipoles longer than about one-tenth wavelength. It postulates that current falls to zero at the dipole ends. By using field theory associated near and far fields are solved to provide a useful description of impedance, pattern and fields. But the evidence from the Transmission Line Experiments indicates that there is insignificant, possibly zero, radiation from the conductor itself. Radiation appears to emanate from volumes of space near the element ends. This newer understanding is more consistent with measurement. If radiation emitted away from the dipole conductor then electrically long dipoles would have no energy left at much shorter wavelengths. They would “run out” before the tips. This is not what is observed. The seat of radiation resistance appears to be a mechanism whereby when current in a wire/column is orthogonally accelerated some of its energy is converted to far-field radiation.

A problem with theory

In all of our efforts to better understand we make use of models or theory. Even when these are inconsistent or clearly not representative of evidence we continue to apply them. Long-held theories such as those from Newton’s, Coulomb’s , Maxwell’s and Einstein, whether they are observational or theoretical, can be the most difficult to escape. They can provide a pleasant comfort that we know something when we do not. They enter our interpretation and resist change.

In the present context of transmission lines, antennas and radiation it is difficult to avoid a Maxwellian perspective with out thoughts and our tools. VNAs have this built in as do our analysis tools such as NEC2. Our considerations of radiation as fields, waves, not-quite-either or both make it difficult to move to improvements and completely new approaches in spite of extremely fundamental problems such as those presented by the double-slit duality and Michelson-Morley.

From a quantum perspective thinking in terms of particles or waves causes us to ask the wrong questions. We get no idea of what light is but only a prediction of what occurs¹¹.

It seems important to recognize that utility doesn’t require correctness. As George Box wrote "All models are wrong, but some are useful." The word “theories” might be substituted for “models” in that statement.

Summary Opinion

None of this should be interpreted as a theory or explanation by the author. I have none. There remain profound problems with our theories. Many of these are contradictory and do not reflect measured evidence. Still they may be extremely useful in creating practical results. Certainly this has been true of Maxwell’s equations from classical physics. But utility should not be confused with completeness or correctness in an absolute sense. We should not think we know the Laws of Physics or that we have theories that explain everything.

In humility, “We don’t know.” continues to be a very good response. That response is at the heart of the Scientific Method which requires that recognition prior to asking “Can we do better?”

In light of the admissions by at least one Nobel laureate physicist, neither classical nor quantum theory provides us fundamental answers as to how to integrate radiation – light itself – into our science. The simple answer that light is “other” and not part of what we consider spacetime might fit Einstein’s suggestion the best. It may be that the poets¹² and artists have as much understanding as the best scientists. Whatever the case, it seems we do well to look in awe at the creation in which we find ourselves.

Glenn Elmore n6gn

Fort Collins, Colorado

December 2025.