# Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory

The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (also called the Wheeler–Feynman time-symmetric theory), named after its originators, the physicists Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler, is an interpretation of electrodynamics derived from the assumption that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time-reversal transformation, as are the field equations themselves. 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. Another key principle, resulting from this interpretation and reminiscent of Mach's principle due to Tetrode, is that elementary particles are not self-interacting. This immediately removes the problem of self-energies.[clarification needed]

## T-symmetry and causality

The requirement of time-reversal symmetry, in general, is difficult to conjugate with the principle of causality. Maxwell's equations and the equations for electromagnetic waves have, in general, two possible solutions: a retarded (delayed) solution and an advanced one. Accordingly, any charged particle generates waves, say at time ${\displaystyle t_{0}=0}$ and point ${\displaystyle x_{0}=0}$, which will arrive at point ${\displaystyle x_{1}}$ at the instant ${\displaystyle t_{1}=x_{1}/c}$ (here ${\displaystyle c}$ is the speed of light), after the emission (retarded solution), and other waves, which will arrive at the same place at the instant ${\displaystyle t_{2}=-x_{1}/c}$, before the emission (advanced solution). The latter, however, violates the causality principle: advanced waves could be detected before their emission. Thus the advanced solutions are usually discarded in the interpretation of electromagnetic waves. In the absorber theory, instead charged particles are considered as both emitters and absorbers, and the emission process is connected with the absorption process as follows: Both the retarded waves from emitter to absorber and the advanced waves from absorber to emitter are considered. The sum of the two, however, results in causal waves, although the anti-causal (advanced) solutions are not discarded a priori.

Feynman and Wheeler obtained this result in a very simple and elegant way. They considered all the charged particles (emitters) present in our universe and assumed all of them to generate time-reversal symmetric waves. The resulting field is

${\displaystyle E_{\text{tot}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)=\sum _{n}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)+E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)}{2}}.}$

Then they observed that if the relation

${\displaystyle E_{\text{free}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)=\sum _{n}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)-E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)}{2}}=0}$

holds, then ${\displaystyle E_{\text{free}}}$, being a solution of the homogeneous Maxwell equation, can be used to obtain the total field

${\displaystyle E_{\text{tot}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)=\sum _{n}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)+E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)}{2}}+\sum _{n}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)-E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} ,t)}{2}}=\sum _{n}E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} ,t).}$

The total field is retarded, and causality is not violated.

The assumption that the free field is identically zero is the core of the absorber idea. It means that the radiation emitted by each particle is completely absorbed by all other particles present in the universe. To better understand this point, it may be useful to consider how the absorption mechanism works in common materials. At the microscopic scale, it results from the sum of the incoming electromagnetic wave and the waves generated from the electrons of the material, which react to the external perturbation. If the incoming wave is absorbed, the result is a zero outgoing field. In the absorber theory the same concept is used, however, in presence of both retarded and advanced waves.

The resulting wave appears to have a preferred time direction, because it respects causality. However, this is only an illusion. Indeed, it is always possible to reverse the time direction by simply exchanging the labels emitter and absorber. Thus, the apparently preferred time direction results from the arbitrary labelling.

## T-symmetry and self-interaction

One of the major results of the absorber theory is the elegant and clear interpretation of the electromagnetic radiation process. A charged particle that experiences acceleration is known to emit electromagnetic waves, i.e., to lose energy. Thus, the Newtonian equation for the particle (${\displaystyle F=ma}$) must contain a dissipative force (damping term), which takes into account this energy loss. In the causal interpretation of electromagnetism, Lorentz and Abraham proposed that such a force, later called Abraham–Lorentz force, is due to the retarded self-interaction of the particle with its own field. This first interpretation, however, is not completely satisfactory, as it leads to divergences in the theory and needs some assumptions on the structure of charge distribution of the particle. Dirac generalized the formula to make it relativistically invariant. While doing so, he also suggested a different interpretation. He showed that the damping term can be expressed in terms of a free field acting on the particle at its own position:

${\displaystyle E^{\text{damping}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)={\frac {E_{j}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)-E_{j}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)}{2}}.}$

However, Dirac did not propose any physical explanation of this interpretation.

A clear and simple explanation can instead be obtained in the framework of absorber theory, starting from the simple idea that each particle does not interact with itself. This is actually the opposite of the first Abraham–Lorentz proposal. The field acting on the particle ${\displaystyle j}$ at its own position (the point ${\displaystyle x_{j}}$) is then

${\displaystyle E^{\text{tot}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)=\sum _{n\neq j}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)+E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)}{2}}.}$

If we sum the free-field term of this expression, we obtain

${\displaystyle E^{\text{tot}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)=\sum _{n\neq j}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)+E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)}{2}}+\sum _{n}{\frac {E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)-E_{n}^{\text{adv}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)}{2}}}$

and, thanks to Dirac's result,

${\displaystyle E^{\text{tot}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)=\sum _{n\neq j}E_{n}^{\text{ret}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)+E^{\text{damping}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t).}$

Thus, the damping force is obtained without the need for self-interaction, which is known to lead to divergences, and also giving a physical justification to the expression derived by Dirac.

## Criticism

The Abraham–Lorentz force is, however, not free of problems. Written in the non-relativistic limit, it gives

${\displaystyle E^{\text{damping}}(\mathbf {x} _{j},t)={\frac {e}{6\pi c^{3}}}{\frac {\mathrm {d} ^{3}}{\mathrm {d} t^{3}}}x.}$

Since the third derivative with respect to the time (also called the "jerk" or "jolt") enters in the equation of motion, to derive a solution one needs not only the initial position and velocity of the particle, but also its initial acceleration. This apparent problem, however, can be solved in the absorber theory by observing that the equation of motion for the particle has to be solved together with the Maxwell equations for the field. In this case, instead of the initial acceleration, one only needs to specify the initial field and the boundary condition. This interpretation restores the coherence of the physical interpretation of the theory.

Other difficulties may arise trying to solve the equation of motion for a charged particle in the presence of this damping force. It is commonly stated that the Maxwell equations are classical and cannot correctly account for microscopic phenomena, such as the behavior of a point-like particle, where quantum-mechanical effects should appear. Nevertheless, with absorber theory, Wheeler and Feynman were able to create a coherent classical approach to the problem (see also the "paradoxes" section in the Abraham–Lorentz force).

Also, the time-symmetric interpretation of the electromagnetic waves appears to be in contrast with the experimental evidence that time flows in a given direction and, thus, that the T-symmetry is broken in our world. It is commonly believed, however, that this symmetry breaking appears only in the thermodynamical limit (see, for example, the arrow of time). Wheeler himself accepted that the expansion of the universe is not time-symmetric in the thermodynamic limit.[citation needed] This, however, does not imply that the T-symmetry must be broken also at the microscopic level.

Finally, the main drawback of the theory turned out to be the result that particles are not self-interacting. Indeed, as demonstrated by Hans Bethe, the Lamb shift necessitated a self-energy term to be explained. Feynman and Bethe had an intense discussion over that issue, and eventually Feynman himself stated that self-interaction is needed to correctly account for this effect.[1]

## Developments since original formulation

### Gravity theory

Inspired by the Machian nature of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory for electrodynamics, Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar proposed their own theory of gravity[2][3][4] in the context of general relativity. This model still exists in spite of recent astronomical observations that have challenged the theory.[5] Stephen Hawking had criticized the original Hoyle-Narlikar theory believing that the advanced waves going off to infinity would lead to a divergence, as indeed they would, if the universe were only expanding. However, as emphasized in the revised version of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory devoid of the "Creation Field" (generating matter out of empty space) known as the Gravitational absorber theory, the universe is also accelerating in that expansion. The acceleration leads to a horizon type cutoff and hence no divergence.[6] Gravitational absorber theory has been used to explain the mass fluctuations in the Woodward effect (see section on Woodward effect below).

### Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics

Again inspired by the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) first proposed in 1986 by John G. Cramer,[7][8] describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. Cramer claims it avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and resolves various quantum paradoxes, such as quantum nonlocality, quantum entanglement and retrocausality.[9][10]

### Attempted resolution of causality

T. C. Scott and R. A. Moore demonstrated that the apparent acausality suggested by the presence of advanced Liénard–Wiechert potentials could be removed by recasting the theory in terms of retarded potentials only, without the complications of the absorber idea.[11][12] The Lagrangian describing a particle (${\displaystyle p_{1}}$) under the influence of the time-symmetric potential generated by another particle (${\displaystyle p_{2}}$) is

${\displaystyle L_{1}=T_{1}-{\frac {1}{2}}\left((V_{R})_{1}^{2}+(V_{A})_{1}^{2}\right),}$

where ${\displaystyle T_{i}}$ is the relativistic kinetic energy functional of particle ${\displaystyle p_{i}}$, and ${\displaystyle (V_{R})_{i}^{j}}$ and ${\displaystyle (V_{A})_{i}^{j}}$ are respectively the retarded and advanced Liénard–Wiechert potentials acting on particle ${\displaystyle p_{i}}$ and generated by particle ${\displaystyle p_{j}}$. The corresponding Lagrangian for particle ${\displaystyle p_{2}}$ is

${\displaystyle L_{2}=T_{2}-{\frac {1}{2}}\left((V_{R})_{2}^{1}+(V_{A})_{2}^{1}\right).}$

It was originally demonstrated with computer algebra[13] and then proven analytically[14] that

${\displaystyle (V_{R})_{j}^{i}-(V_{A})_{i}^{j}}$

is a total time derivative, i.e. a divergence in the calculus of variations, and thus it gives no contribution to the Euler–Lagrange equations. Thanks to this result the advanced potentials can be eliminated; here the total derivative plays the same role as the free field. The Lagrangian for the N-body system is therefore

${\displaystyle L=\sum _{i=1}^{N}T_{i}-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{i\neq j}^{N}(V_{R})_{j}^{i}.}$

The resulting Lagrangian is symmetric under the exchange of ${\displaystyle p_{i}}$ with ${\displaystyle p_{j}}$. For ${\displaystyle N=2}$ this Lagrangian will generate exactly the same equations of motion of ${\displaystyle L_{1}}$ and ${\displaystyle L_{2}}$. Therefore, from the point of view of an outside observer, everything is causal. This formulation reflects particle-particle symmetry with the variational principle applied to the N-particle system as a whole, and thus Tetrode's Machian principle.[14] Only if we isolate the forces acting on a particular body do the advanced potentials make their appearance. This recasting of the problem comes at a price: the N-body Lagrangian depends on all the time derivatives of the curves traced by all particles, i.e. the Lagrangian is infinite-order. However, much progress was made in examining the unresolved issue of quantizing the theory.[15][16][17] Also, this formulation recovers the Darwin Lagrangian, from which the Breit equation was originally derived, but without the dissipative terms.[14] This ensures agreement with theory and experiment, up to but not including the Lamb shift. Numerical solutions for the classical problem were also found.[18] Furthermore, Moore showed that a model by Feynman and Hibbs is amenable to the methods of higher than first-order Lagrangians and revealed chaoticlike solutions.[19] Moore and Scott[11] 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.

This apparent acausality may be viewed as merely apparent, and this entire problem goes away. An opposing view was held by Einstein.[20]

### Alternative Lamb shift calculation

As mentioned previously, a serious criticism against the absorber theory is that its Machian assumption that point particles do not act on themselves does not allow (infinite) self-energies and consequently an explanation for the Lamb shift according to quantum electrodynamics (QED). Ed Jaynes proposed an alternate model where the Lamb-like shift is due instead to the interaction with other particles very much along the same notions of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory itself. One simple model is to calculate the motion of an oscillator coupled directly with many other oscillators. Jaynes has shown that it is easy to get both spontaneous emission and Lamb shift behavior in classical mechanics.[21] Furthermore, Jaynes' alternative provides a solution to the process of "addition and subtraction of infinities" associated with renormalization.[22]

This model leads to the same type of Bethe logarithm (an essential part of the Lamb shift calculation), vindicating Jaynes' claim that two different physical models can be mathematically isomorphic to each other and therefore yield the same results, a point also apparently made by Scott and Moore on the issue of causality.

## Woodward effect

The Woodward effect[23] is a physical hypothesis about the possibility for a body to see its mass change when the energy density varies in time. Proposed in 1990 by James Woodward, the effect is based on a formulation of Mach's principle proposed in 1953 by Dennis Sciama.[24]

If confirmed experimentally (see timeline of results in the main article), the Woodward effect would open pathways in astronautics research, as it could be used to propel a spacecraft by propellantless propulsion meaning that it would not have to expel matter to accelerate. As previously formulated by Sciama, Woodward suggests that the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory would be the correct way to understand the action of instantaneous inertial forces in Machian terms.[25][26]

## Conclusions

This universal absorber theory is mentioned in the chapter titled "Monster Minds" in Feynman's autobiographical work Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and in Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics. It led to the formulation of a framework of quantum mechanics using a Lagrangian and action as starting points, rather than a Hamiltonian, namely the formulation using Feynman path integrals, which proved useful in Feynman's earliest calculations in quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory in general. Both retarded and advanced fields appear respectively as retarded and advanced propagators and also in the Feynman propagator and the Dyson propagator. In hindsight, the relationship between retarded and advanced potentials shown here is not so surprising in view of the fact that, in field theory, the advanced propagator can be obtained from the retarded propagator by exchanging the roles of field source and test particle (usually within the kernel of a Green's function formalism). In field theory, advanced and retarded fields are simply viewed as mathematical solutions of Maxwell's equations whose combinations are decided by the boundary conditions.

## Notes

1. ^ Gleick, James (1993). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. New York : Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679747048.
2. ^ F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar (1964). "A New Theory of Gravitation". Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 282 (1389): 191–207. Bibcode:1964RSPSA.282..191H. doi:10.1098/rspa.1964.0227. S2CID 59402270.
3. ^ "Cosmology: Math Plus Mach Equals Far-Out Gravity". Time. June 26, 1964. Retrieved 7 August 2010.
4. ^ Hoyle, F.; Narlikar, J. V. (1995). "Cosmology and action-at-a-distance electrodynamics" (PDF). Reviews of Modern Physics. 67 (1): 113–155. Bibcode:1995RvMP...67..113H. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.67.113.
5. ^ Edward L. Wright. "Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models". Retrieved 7 August 2010.
6. ^ Fearn, Heidi (September 2016). Gravitational Absorber Theory & the Mach Effect (PDF). Exotic Propulsion Workshop. Estes Park, CO: Space Studies Institute. pp. 89–109.
7. ^ Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.
8. ^ Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751. S2CID 18588747.
9. ^ Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.
10. ^ Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.
11. ^ a b Moore, R. A.; Scott, T. C.; Monagan, M. B. (1987). "Relativistic, many-particle Lagrangean for electromagnetic interactions". Physical Review Letters. 59 (5): 525–527. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59..525M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.525. PMID 10035796.
12. ^ Moore, R. A.; Scott, T. C.; Monagan, M. B. (1988). "A Model for a Relativistic Many-Particle Lagrangian with Electromagnetic Interactions". Canadian Journal of Physics. 66 (3): 206–211. Bibcode:1988CaJPh..66..206M. doi:10.1139/p88-032.
13. ^ Scott, T. C.; Moore, R. A.; Monagan, M. B. (1989). "Resolution of Many Particle Electrodynamics by Symbolic Manipulation". Computer Physics Communications. 52 (2): 261–281. Bibcode:1989CoPhC..52..261S. doi:10.1016/0010-4655(89)90009-X.
14. ^ a b c Scott, T. C. (1986). "Relativistic Classical and Quantum Mechanical Treatment of the Two-body Problem". MMath Thesis. University of Waterloo, Canada.
15. ^ Scott, T. C.; Moore, R. A. (1989). "Quantization of Hamiltonians from High-Order Lagrangians". Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements. 6: 455–457. Bibcode:1989NuPhS...6..455S. doi:10.1016/0920-5632(89)90498-2.
16. ^ Moore, R. A.; Scott, T. C. (1991). "Quantization of Second-Order Lagrangians: Model Problem". Physical Review A. 44 (3): 1477–1484. Bibcode:1991PhRvA..44.1477M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.44.1477. PMID 9906108.
17. ^ Moore, R. A.; Scott, T. C. (1992). "Quantization of Second-Order Lagrangians: The Fokker-Wheeler-Feynman model of electrodynamics". Physical Review A. 46 (7): 3637–3645. Bibcode:1992PhRvA..46.3637M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.46.3637. PMID 9908553.
18. ^ Moore, R. A.; Qi, D.; Scott, T. C. (1992). "Causality of Relativistic Many-Particle Classical Dynamics Theories". Can. J. Phys. 70 (9): 772–781. Bibcode:1992CaJPh..70..772M. doi:10.1139/p92-122.
19. ^ Moore, R. A. (1999). "Formal quantization of a chaotic model problem". Canadian Journal of Physics. 77 (3): 221–233. Bibcode:1999CaJPh..77..221M. doi:10.1139/p99-020.
20. ^ "Sorry". www.ntscom.com.
21. ^ E. T. Jaynes, "The Lamb Shift in Classical Mechanics" in "Probability in Quantum Theory", pp. 13–15, (1996) Jaynes' analysis of Lamb shift.
22. ^ E. T. Jaynes, "Classical Subtraction Physics" in "Probability in Quantum Theory", pp. 15–18, (1996) Jaynes' analysis of handing the infinities of the Lamb shift calculation.
23. ^ Woodward, James F. (October 1990). "A new experimental approach to Mach's principle and relativistic gravitation". Foundations of Physics Letters. 3 (5): 497–506. Bibcode:1990FoPhL...3..497W. doi:10.1007/BF00665932. S2CID 120603211.
24. ^ Sciama, D. W. (1953). "On the Origin of Inertia". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 113: 34–42. Bibcode:1953MNRAS.113...34S. doi:10.1093/mnras/113.1.34.
25. ^ Woodward, James F. (May 2001). "Gravity, Inertia, and Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Fields". Foundations of Physics. 31 (5): 819–835. doi:10.1023/A:1017500513005. S2CID 117281390.
26. ^ Rodal, José (May 2019). "A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar--tensor gravitational theory". General Relativity and Gravitation. 51 (5): 64. Bibcode:2019GReGr..51...64R. doi:10.1007/s10714-019-2547-9. ISSN 1572-9532. S2CID 182905618.