| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Thanks, Bob:its
You make a distinction between forces which are
"Maxwellian" (=classical) and forces which are "electric"
(=non-classical).
I used to think that stability of charges on metallic surfaces
can be explained by classical physics. Now I learn that this is
not true. Hmm? Classical physics predicts that "like charges
repel each other and should consequently escape from a
metallic sphere into the surrounding vacuum." The
prediction, as we all know, is not consistent with reality.
How was this interpreted before Q.M.?
The situation is very different from what we have in classical
versus non-classical kinematics. Relativistic kinematics is “
more correct” than Gallilean kinematics but the differences are
not significant, unless v/c are large. Electrostatics, on the other
hand, must be non-classical from the beginning, even for large
objects. I was not aware how much is hidden behind the concept
of work function.
Ludwik Kowalski
The process is surely electrodynamics, but quantum mechanical - not
Maxwellian. Eg. the Pauli principle is operative. This is not a
separate force but a general constraint on all forces/system states.
(It's effect has been referred to as the "exchange force" because of
root in particle statistics.)