This paper looks a bit sketchy.

[Menaus]

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511172v2

"Instantaneous Interaction between Charged Particles" by Wolfgang Engelhardt

Submitted to Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie

Has this paper undergone a good process of peer review? It seems in violation of Special Relativity.

 

[DrClaude]

Even if it does get published, I wouldn't call the Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie a research journal. As it stands, I think this article doesn't meet the criteria for discussion on PF.

 

[Jano L.]

The paper is careless in its exposition. The idea that Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy require instantaneous propagation of force is most probably wrong.

The equations in (1) are not standard wave equations with charge and current source terms, but instead some part of the field is used as a source. Then the source is distributed in the whole space and this precludes simple interpretation of $E_w$ as EM wave propagating with speed $c$ from charged body.

The examples with the charge and current loop do not support author's claim in any way. The field is often treated as instantaneous function of charge and current distribution not because the field propagates instantaneously, but because the difference from the correct retarded field is negligible for slowly oscillating currents.

 

[Menaus]

Hmmm... This article cites a paper as experimental evidence.

"Experimental Evidence on Non-Applicability of the Standard Retardation Condition to Bound Magnetic Fields and on New Generalized Biot-Savart Law"

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601084

I has not been published by anyone.

This is a larger one, i'll have to look at it later.

 

[PJC01]

As a scientist, it is important to approach any paper or study with a critical and objective mindset. While the topic of instantaneous interaction between charged particles is certainly intriguing, the validity and credibility of this particular paper may be called into question. Upon a cursory glance at the paper, it is apparent that it has not been published in a reputable journal and has not undergone a thorough peer review process. Additionally, the claim that it violates Special Relativity, a well-established and extensively tested theory, raises red flags about the accuracy and reliability of the findings presented in this paper. Further investigation and rigorous evaluation by experts in the field would be necessary to determine the validity of the claims made in this paper. As scientists, it is important to approach any new findings with skepticism and to rely on evidence-based research to draw conclusions.