Talk:Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory

message: 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)
replies: text: It's the average of retarded and advanced potentials to ensure that when the charge does not move, the potentials reduced to the standard static Coulomb potential.  That's why you need the factor of 1/2.  BTW, if you don't like the complications and assumptions of the absorber theory, Moore and Scott " showed that the radiation reaction can be alternatively derived using the notion that on average the net dipole moment is zero for a collection of charged particles, thereby avoiding the complications of the absorber theory."  If you read the cited article in PRL, they were able to recover the radiation reaction term merely by assuming that the local net charge and the local net dipole moment to be zero on average, a condition which often exists for sufficiently large spaces.   This avoids large cosmological issues but you do raise a valid point: if these conditions are not met, what are the consequences?  Hope this helps.  TonyMath (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain 

message: 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)
replies: text: You could perhaps add "(delayed)" in parens to clarify, but I wouldn't make up a new terminology.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I'll make the change. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A retarded solution" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see anyone suggesting a correction is expected, I assume that the article is not watched very much. Damotclese (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Wheeler-Feynman theory really applies to microscopic processes which are expressed in quantum electrodynamics in terms of retarded and advanced propagators, originally formulated for electromagnetic processes only.  The Hubble constant is more germane to the gravitational theory of Hoyle and Narliker.  Feynman explains thermodynamics beautifully in his lectures of physics (some of which you can actually find on YouTube) as the increase of disorder which I gather is the most effective explanation for the arrow of time.  On a cosmological scale, the ball game is very different.  TonyMath (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is at all helpful Hubble's law is probably best explained by the Friedmann equations resulting from the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric which is a General Relativity model.TonyMath (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubble Constant damping 

message: 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)
replies: text: References can be found in the main article on the Hoyle-Narlikar theory i.e. Edward L. Wright. "Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models". Retrieved 7 August 2010.  I would not bother adding the reference - just point towards the main article,TonyMath (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, the missing reference was added.TonyMath (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mention of a revised Hoyle-Narliker theory of gravity called  "Gravitational absorber theory" as pointed out  in the article on the Woodward effect has been added. Some lines were added here as to show how the original HN theory was challenged and how the revised theory better handles recent astronomical observations.  It also ties in nicely with the Woodward effect.TonyMath (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: 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)
replies: text: Eleven years ago someone switched from this  which has language that seems much more encyclopedic. Suggest rewriters build on it. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede w/o condescension? 

message: @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)
thread_title:  Big equation in the intro.