Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:44:55 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents? Eric I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 22:45:39 -0200: Hi, [snip] You see, that means you are sending information to the past! You are strengthening something that hasn't arrived yet! [snip] You are not sending something to the past. You are just sending information that won't be perceived via signals traveling at the speed of light until later. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. If you were a little confused by it, I was very much so. It would be nice if someone who knows a little about the research and the claim could clarify what it's getting at and what it does and doesn't apply to. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. This reminds me of a different but related result concerning prisms. When two prisms are adjacent, no refraction takes place as light passes through the common surface between them. When they are separated by a distance, refraction does occur, but not all of the time. In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. The effect is called the Hartman effect [1]. As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
I wrote: In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. Correction: the tunnelling time tends towards constant time for large gaps between the barriers, and hence appears to exceed the speed of light in some cases. This is different from saying that the tunneling time is instantaneous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
I have long considered another quantum means of instantaneous communication. Partial reflection (like oil film on water) depends on the thickness of the partially reflective layer. If the thickness increases a little the dominant reflected frequency shifts and this occurs in cycles, with no known limit. Also this still works even if you throw photons one at a time, much like the double slit experiment. Furthermore the dominant frequency at the top layer depends not only on the thickness of that layer, but of any layers beyond that. So in theory if you had layers of different thickness glass and effect the reflection at the surface of one layer based on the thickness of a layer behind it some distance away you could achieve some highly impractical means on optical FTL communication. Even the normal versions of this effect must be superluminal, albeit over a very small scale. And this can obviously be used for information transfer. John On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. If you were a little confused by it, I was very much so. It would be nice if someone who knows a little about the research and the claim could clarify what it's getting at and what it does and doesn't apply to. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. This reminds me of a different but related result concerning prisms. When two prisms are adjacent, no refraction takes place as light passes through the common surface between them. When they are separated by a distance, refraction does occur, but not all of the time. In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. The effect is called the Hartman effect [1]. As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=7cad=rjaved=0CGYQFjAGurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.mit.edu%2Fopenaccess-disseminate%2F1721.1%2F51855ei=hSABU_73M6fe0wGPkoEgusg=AFQjCNE3RIaTLuP3UfnKWjjbBg2YXVix9wsig2=gOVuS4jAJtDRUOnScJFTDg *Lieb-Robinson Bounds and the Speed of Light from Topological Order* This letter that has just been released today explains how both light and its finite speed emerges from the coupling constant of the spin net liquid that forms the vacuum. There is no infinite speed of information because of the principle of localization in quantum mechanics. Light is an excitation of spins that must progress in serious from on plank volume to another. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:44 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:30:53 -0800: Hi, [snip] As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). ..the problem with this is:- how do you know when the cause occurred? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:28:44 -0500: Hi, [snip] Light is an excitation of spins that must progress in serious from on plank volume to another. ..yes, but that's because light does indeed spin. Photons have angular momentum. An electric potential change may become evident much faster, due to a compression wave in the medium rather than the transverse waves that are used to represent translation of rotating objects, i.e. photons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Experiments like these dig up old debates about the nature of matter which mainstream physics since the time of Newton keeps burying. Harry On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I'm not sure that I even understand what it meant by the phrase. If you were a little confused by it, I was very much so. It would be nice if someone who knows a little about the research and the claim could clarify what it's getting at and what it does and doesn't apply to. However If looking for a means of building an FTL receiver, I would suggest something that relies upon tunneling, e.g. a Josephson junction, provided that some aspect of the chance of tunneling is influenced by the electric potential. This reminds me of a different but related result concerning prisms. When two prisms are adjacent, no refraction takes place as light passes through the common surface between them. When they are separated by a distance, refraction does occur, but not all of the time. In some cases photons will tunnel through a barrier between the two prisms without refraction. If I have understood what I have read, this tunneling is thought to occur instantaneously, in contrast to the situation where the photon exits one prism, travels through the air and enters the other prism. The effect is called the Hartman effect [1]. As I read more about FTL communication, I now understand that in the context of special relativity it is interpreted to imply the existence of time travel, since in some reference frame the effect (the receiving of the information) will occur prior to the cause (the sending of the information). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
I produced something like that from my model. My model taken to the extreme states that electrons are rigid. One of my theorems is, Electrons do not bounce. They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest energy state. This is the root cause of Fermi statistics. The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction. They interact through a process of elastic failure. Elastic failure is a classical property. Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg. Impedance matched systems do not bounce. Electrons propagate through channels of matching impedance. The quantification of the velocity of the process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition. That's what I got out of cold fusion. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. 2014-02-15 13:04 GMT-02:00 fznidar...@aol.com: I produced something like that from my model. My model taken to the extreme states that electrons are rigid. One of my theorems is, Electrons do not bounce. They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest energy state. This is the root cause of Fermi statistics. The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction. They interact through a process of elastic failure. Elastic failure is a classical property. Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg. Impedance matched systems do not bounce. Electrons propagate through channels of matching impedance. The quantification of the velocity of the process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition. That's what I got out of cold fusion. Frank Z -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
But if you could sense the field ( e.g. capacitor plate ), you could send information at infinite speed -- what's wrong with that analysis? From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:22 PM To: John Milstone Subject: Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. 2014-02-15 13:04 GMT-02:00 fznidar...@aol.com: I produced something like that from my model. My model taken to the extreme states that electrons are rigid. One of my theorems is, Electrons do not bounce. They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest energy state. This is the root cause of Fermi statistics. The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction. They interact through a process of elastic failure. Elastic failure is a classical property. Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg. Impedance matched systems do not bounce. Electrons propagate through channels of matching impedance. The quantification of the velocity of the process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition. That's what I got out of cold fusion. Frank Z -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200: Hi, [snip] Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents? Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200: Hi, [snip] Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. nice. harry
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
My bet is on the speed being c. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents? Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My bet is on the speed being c. This sounds most consistent with current expectations of the two possibilities. Here is another section from Wikipedia that seems to argue against the conclusion of the earlier-mentioned experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Apparent_FTL_propagation_of_static_field_effects This same page gives examples of some rates that are observed that are faster than light, including closing speeds (the rate at which two bodies close in on one another) and phase and group velocities. The propagation of an electrostatic field along an entrainment of charged particles gives more the sense of the propagation of a phase or group than of a particle itself, whose velocity is limited by *c.* Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
You see, that means you are sending information to the past! You are strengthening something that hasn't arrived yet! 2014-02-15 19:30 GMT-02:00 mix...@bigpond.com: In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200: Hi, [snip] Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Lienard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Lienard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
BTW, I learned about this experiment while reading about Coulomb's law on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law#Tentative_evidence_of_infinite_speed_of_propagation Harry On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:44 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Could the longitudinal displacement be instantaneous, while the transverse is limited to C? There reminds me of a conundrum that occurs with magnetic fields especially if one does not consider vector analysis. If a current is passed through a large hoop coil suddenly (current quickly reaching a steady state), when does the magnetic field reach maximum at the center? Since all lines are closed loops that pass through the center of the coil, and since this also applies to even the most slight and distant magnetic influence then there are 3 possibilities. Either the magnetic field is instantaneously established everywhere, this would make sense if the electric field were instantaneous. Or the magnetic field in the center (despite constant current) never quite reached an absolute maximum since the field continues to expand, however minimally. Or the magnetic field in the center is manifested fully before the external field is, which means we have open lines of magnetic flux in the center of a magnet. I am not sure if this seem so interesting if the convenient lines of force is dropped for a more accurate vector analysis model. John On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:44 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
