According to Teplitz, “The state of the classical electromagnetic theory reminds one of a house under construction that was abandoned by its working workmen upon receiving news of an approaching plague. The plague was in this case, of course, quantum theory.”
As cited in Electromagnetism: Paths to Research, by Doris Teplitz. Springer Verlag.
With thanks to everyone, please see Preprint at:
Preprint Maxwell Equations Excluded From Electromagnetism By Quantum Mechanics
There is no need to exclude Maxwell's equations from physics, because they are equivalent to the relativistic equations for the field strength tensor. So even if we threw them out, they would still be there in disguise. An axial vector is equivalent to an antisymmetric tensor, so the B field axial vector does not cause any problems either.
Moreover, there are still many physicists who find it easier to think in terms of Maxwell's equations than in terms of the curl and divergence of a four-tensor.
And finally, as Feynman states, physicists should always be willing to keep several different formulations of the same physical laws in mind as there is no rule that tells us which form is the best when the necessity of generalizations arises due to more precise experiments or some other reason breaking the old laws. For example, there is no need for the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations of mechanics, because essentially they do not go beyond Newton's laws. Nevertheless, it is much easier to find the Schrödinger equation or Feynman's path integrals if you know Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics.
I do not think that the integral form and the differential form of Maxwell's equations are equivalent notions in the presence of sources.
In the integral and experimental form, a source will generates fields that are only intended to influence test particles different from the source. And yet in the differential form (Maxwell-Gauss and Maxwell-Ampère), a source generates fields even at its own location and that is how a meaning is give to the "continuity equation".
@ Ed Gerck
The physical interpretation of (mathematical notions of) electric and magnetic fields is conceived solely by the expression of the Lorentz force, that is to say, how a test particle is locally influenced in the presence of these fields.
And it is not easy to think in an experiment that any source can exert a Lorentz force on itself.
Historically, if we consider that the Maxwell equations in vacuum (associated with the Lorentz force) are a postulate in a given inertial reference frame, then the Liénard-Wiechert potentials are a solution to calculate the fields generated by different sources in this frame of reference. The solutions obtained in this way are not modified by the theory of special relativity because Maxwell's equations in vacuum and Lorentz force are compatible with the principle of relativity (through the transformation of Lorentz)
However, from a theoretical point of view, it is not necessarily essential to use Maxwell as a postulate of the physics of electric sources.
Using the Lorentz force generated by non accelerated sources, and the relativity principle, and the Lorentz transformation (existence of a limit speed for the transmission of influences) as basic postulates, on can consider the Coulomb formula in the inertial frame where a source is constantly at rest to compute the field electromagnetic that exists in an inertial reference system where the source has a rectilinear and uniform motion, and we then see that the Maxwell equations in the vacuum are satisfied !
If the source is accelerated, it will still exert an electromagnetic influence on the test particles (and perhaps Maxwell in the vacuum will still be valid), but we do not have to assume that the source will not generate any other kind of influence on test particles, for example gravitational:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_this_interpretation_of_the_Machs_principle_already_been_explored
There is no need to exclude Maxwell's equations from physics, because they are equivalent to the relativistic equations for the field strength tensor. So even if we threw them out, they would still be there in disguise. An axial vector is equivalent to an antisymmetric tensor, so the B field axial vector does not cause any problems either.
Moreover, there are still many physicists who find it easier to think in terms of Maxwell's equations than in terms of the curl and divergence of a four-tensor.
And finally, as Feynman states, physicists should always be willing to keep several different formulations of the same physical laws in mind as there is no rule that tells us which form is the best when the necessity of generalizations arises due to more precise experiments or some other reason breaking the old laws. For example, there is no need for the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations of mechanics, because essentially they do not go beyond Newton's laws. Nevertheless, it is much easier to find the Schrödinger equation or Feynman's path integrals if you know Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics.
Dear Ed, you wrote: "SR has difficulties today".
Could you briefly indicate what those supposed difficulties are?
Dear Ed,
I misunderstand your post. It would be convenient to wrote “SR different formulations have difficulties today”.
Anyway, the 4D and 3+1space-time formulations are necessary and, if correctly used, will gave identical results.
Dear Ed,
Modern approach (Logunov) of SR theory has one single postulate: Space-time has Pseudo Euclidean geometry (Minkowski space). So, it is no relevant the mathematical structure used. Any formulation preserving such space-time geometry will be equivalent and, as I said before, will gave identical results.
The shared article in your last comment does not correctly refer to 3+1space-time formulation preserving the pseudo Euclidean geometry. What they named (3+1) approach is non-covariant (see Conclusions). So, it is not a SR formulation.
Using slow transport to synchronize clocks and thus to define a temporal variable in a three-dimensional Euclidean space, in which we consider the relativistic modification of Newton's second law, is a rather strange process, and an approximation that can naturally provide doubtful results when a certain accuracy is reached in the analysis of the experimental results.
Indeed, the theory provides that the modification of Newton's second law has the usual form when the temporal variable is defined independently of the three-dimensional space but in accordance with the Poincaré-Einstein's procedure, that is to say through the hypothesis of the constancy of the motion of the electromagnetic signal in the vacuum.
Thus, for a theorist, it is disturbing to read the conclusion of the DESY's report:
>
On the other hand, it is not easy to make a comparison with the theoretical extension of defining the temporal and spatial derivatives of electric and magnetic fields that a source generates in a place where it is located, but mathematics can sometimes surprise and the theory can turns out to be not directly related to its practical approximations:
Anatoly A. Logunov (April 2000, monograph relativistic theory of gravity RTG):
>
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Error_in_the_mathematical_formulation_of_Einsteins_equivalence_principle
Dear Ed,
the root causes for all the physical properties we observe, are not expressed within the equations, we use to describe these properties. Therefore the validity of all equations including the Maxwell equations is limited to length scales >>Planck Length and to length scales
No, Maxwell's Equations can never be excluded from Electromagnetism. These are principles of Electromagnetism, and cannot be excluded.
Dear Paul,
What do you mean from "revided"? I think that you mean "revised".
Anyway, Maxwell's Equations are necessary and sufficient for Classical Electrodynamics. These equations cannot be revised in Classical Electrodynamics.
I already wrote the theory in the language of distributions (i.e. all physical terms (and laws) must be described by using functionals)
What would be the aim of a revision of the Maxwell Equations?
Is it an extension of the validity range to small or giant length/time/energy scales or to extremly high energy densities (e.g. photon/photon interaction) or to fully cover relativistic effects (keywords: QED,"tensor formulation of the angular momentum")?
Or is it only a revision of the mathematical formulation with the aim to simplify calculations?
But, experimental laws are vital in Physics. The laws must be independent and universal. Four Maxwell's Equations are vital in Classical Electrodynamics.
I do not know what you mean from exclusion of the Equations. With no doubt, if one of the Maxwell's Equations is excluded, another equation has to be included, which should be independent of the other three equations.
“The electron is a photon around Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“The photon wavelength is 2πr, r the electron radius”
Adrian Ferent
“The high energy Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter keep the photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity is important the energies of the Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter, not the Dark Matter mass”
Adrian Ferent
“Inside the electron, Dark Matter mass is much smaller than electron mass, but has much bigger energy”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent electron and positron collision:”
Adrian Ferent
“Photon momentum after n interactions:“
Adrian Ferent
“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron spin”
Adrian Ferent
“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron charge, negative charge – electron, positive charge – positron””
Adrian Ferent
“Because electron–positron pair is produced by a photon – photon interaction and two gamma rays of 0.5 MeV each will be created in electron and positron collision, I considered only one photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
“Gamma ray is inside the electron because of electron’s electromagnetic properties and electrons interactions with photons”
Adrian Ferent
Einstein said; “You know, it would be sufficient to understand the electron” which is still true today.
“Conclusion: No Conclusion. So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle, and a wave; it is ideally simple, and unimaginably complex; it is precisely understood, and utterly mysterious; it is rigid, and subject to creative disassembly. No single answer does justice to reality. ” – Frank Wilczek
Our civilization is based on electrons, without knowing what electron is.
Electrons cannot be described as solid particles. An electron is a quantum object.
Because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, particles cannot be restricted to a geometric point in space because this would require an infinite particle momentum.
Atomic orbital is a function that describes the wave-like electron inside the atom and this function is used to calculate the probability of finding the electron around the nucleus.
Electron and positron collision: at low energies the result of the collision is the annihilation of the electron and the positron and gamma ray are created.
If the annihilating electron and positron are at rest, each of the resulting gamma rays has energy of 0.5 MeV and frequency of 123 EHz.
“Ferent electron and positron collision:”
Adrian Ferent
Where: DMe is the Dark Matter inside the electron
DMp is the Dark Matter inside the positron
“Dark Matter interacts only gravitationally with matter”
Adrian Ferent
“The elementary particles are created around Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
That is why at CERN they do not know what they collide, that is why they do not detect Dark Matter.
“Because the elementary particles contain Dark Matter with the mass much smaller than particles mass, Dark Matter is not detected at CERN”
Adrian Ferent
Photon – photon interaction: both photons are gammas rays with just enough energy to produce an electron–positron pair.
“Ferent equation for the energy of a photon E = h × f + a × f ”
Adrian Ferent
One possible explanation for the electron:
“Because the photon has Dark Matter, the interaction Dark Matter photon with Dark Matter electron, keep the photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent equation for photon – graviton interaction: E = h × f + a × f - a × ν “
Adrian Ferent
Another possible explanation for the electron:
If I take in consideration the gravitons pe emitted by the photon, the equation will be:
“Photon momentum after n interactions:“
Adrian Ferent
The momentum of gravitons pe emitted by the photon, it is smaller than the momentum pk of the gravitons received by photon from a galaxy.
That is why the photon will move towards the galaxy and this is Gravitational lensing.
In the same way, was created the electron:
“The high energy Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter keep the photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
A single-photon pulse is a pure quantum state.
“The electron is a photon around Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
Because the photon must be very close to Dark Matter, in classical view:
“The photon wavelength is 2πr, r the electron radius”
Adrian Ferent
Scientists will say for that radius is required a huge mass for Dark Matter, this means the electron will have a huge mass.
The Schwarzschild radius, the radius of the event horizon:
In Ferent Quantum Gravity this is not relevant, because Einstein Gravitation theory is wrong.
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity is important the energies of the Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter, not the Dark Matter mass”
Adrian Ferent
“Mass–energy equivalence for Dark Matter: E = md × vp^2”
Adrian Ferent
That is why:
“Inside the electron, Dark Matter mass is much smaller than electron mass, but has much bigger energy”
Adrian Ferent
That is why particles like axions, neutrino, neutralinos…are not Dark Matter particles.
“What you learned from your professors, from peer-reviewed journals, from your books, from the greatest scientists about Gravitation, Black Holes, Dark Matter… is wrong” Adrian Ferent
“The elementary particles contain Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
“Unification between Matter and Dark Matter:”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent equation for elementary particles:”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent equation for N elementary particles:”
Adrian Ferent
“Ferent equation for elementary particle, made of 2 particles, a Matter particle and a Dark Matter particle, is the Unification between Matter and Dark Matter!”
Adrian Ferent
“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron spin”
Adrian Ferent
“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron charge, negative charge – electron, positive charge – positron””
Adrian Ferent
“Because electron–positron pair is produced by a photon – photon interaction and two gamma rays of 0.5 MeV each will be created in electron and positron collision, I considered only one photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
“Gamma ray is inside the electron because of electron’s electromagnetic properties and electrons interactions with photons”
Adrian Ferent
In classical electrodynamics, the magnetic moment of an electron and a neutral particle is not taken into account. In this regard, it can be supplemented.
Dear Seil Sautbekov ,
Yes, you are quite right. The magnetic moment of an electron needs quantum electrodynamics.
I propose to consider taking into account of the magnetic moment in classical electrodynamics with help of the potential of a magnetic dipole (or neutral currents) obtained in
https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1YvLP15Kgb69JJ
Classical Electrodynamics with four Maxwell's Equations is quite perfect, and is able to explain all the phenomena in this field.
None of the equations can be excluded, and another equation cannot be included. Never doubt the truth and universality of Maxwell's Equations in Classical Electrodynamics.
Some subjects such as the magnetic dipole moment of an electron, which is directly related to its angular momentum, is not in the scope of Classical Electrodynamics.
Conclusion: CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS IS PERFECT AND NO IMPERFECTION CAN BE FOUND.
In general, magnetic force is observer-dependent. But, it can be properly explained using the Maxwell's equations. The reason is that Maxwell's equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
NONE OF THE MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS.
Give the end result without mentioning the history?
Sure, it is possible, but pointless.
Dear Thierry ,
In fact, your comments on the special theory of relativity in Electromagnetism (static electromagnetic fields)as well as the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's Equations surprised me.
I would like to point out a short history regarding the special relativity, electromagnetism as well as the retardation of electromagnetic fields originated from a moving charge as follows:
Hereby, I would like to emphasize that Oliver Heaviside was the first physicist who introduced the Lorenz transformations, when he was working on some electrodynamical problems such as those involving a steady current passing through a conducting wire for which the velocity of the charged particle was constant. He demonstrated that for an observer moving with the same velocity, the coefficients of the space-time transformations were obtained with due attention to this fact that the electric resistance of the wire should be invariant in comparison with the value obtained from other approaches (such as solving the Laplace equation for the steady current potential). Heaviside never published his important results.
After Heaviside, the Lorenz transformations were also studied by Joseph Larmor in 1900.
Afterwards, Hendrik Lorentz worked on the transformations, and obtained the coefficients. He published his results in a paper in 1904.
Albert Einstein used the results obtained by Hendrik Lorentz in his works and studied them in more details. For instance, he concentrated on the special relativity applied to static electromagnetic fields such as electromagnetism of charged particles traveling with a constant velocity (as is the case for steady current problems).
I know the incorrect assumption that Einstein made in his paper, but the special theory of relativity (and equivalently the Lorentz transformations) and electromagnetism (i.e. static electromagnetic fields) are closely related to each other, and is independent of the mistake made by Einstein. Hence I frankly say that:
EXCLUSION OF THE LORENTZ INVARIANCE FROM MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS OR ELECTROMAGNETISM CAN NEVER BE STATED AND DISCUSSED.
Study of electromagnetism of a charged particle moving with a constant velocity requires special theory of relativity provided the observer moves with the same velocity. As a consequence, this is a fact in static electromagnetic fields, and cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, retardation of electromagnetic fields is also a fact, and in general it can be properly studied with the Jefimenko's Generalizations for time varying fields, which correspond the generalized Coulomb and Biot-Savart laws.
In the case that the charged particle moves with a velocity (not essentially constant), the retarded electric and magnetic components of the electromagnetic fields can be properly explained by the Lienard-Wichert formulation. It is evident that if the charged particle travels in a medium with a time varying velocity, the special theory of relativity is no longer valid. Hence, Lorentz invariance as well as the Lorentz transformations are not applicable; and thus, cannot be used due to the acceleration of the charged particle.
Best wishes,
Houshyar Noshad
The phenomenon of EM waves cannot be understood as separated from
SRT. Agree with Houshyar. The Lorenz transformation is inherent in this.
The theory is practically built around the propagation of EM waves.
Dear Juan,
I quite agree with you.
It is evident that the Lorentz transformation and consequently the special theory of relativity is the base and foundation for static electromagnetic field theory. Special relativity will never be excluded from the static electromagnetic field theory.
A physicist who is an expert in Electrodynamics will never think about exclusion of Lorentz transformation from Maxwell's Equations as well as electromagnetism (i.e. static fields).
In the case of non-static electromagnetic fields, namely for time varying fields, the special relativity cannot be applied due to the acceleration of charged particles.
Dear Thierry,
I have studied the articles you sent to me previously. By studying the articles, no one can conclude that the Lorentz transformations can be excluded from static electromagnetic field theory.
STATIC ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD THEORY AND SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY (LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS) ARE STRONGLY CORRELATED WITH EACH OTHER. HENCE, THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS WILL NEVER BE EXCLUDED FROM THE STATIC THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETISM.
Dear Thierry De Mees,
For the static electromagnetic fields, i.e. time independent fields, there are four fundamental equations for static fields, the so-called Static Maxwell's equations. They are fundamental equations in time independent electromagnetism. All the equations can be derived merely by one experiment, which is well-known as the Coulomb law.
By taking the divergence of the Coulomb law, one can obtain an equation as
"Divergence D = Ro".
Taking the curl of the Coulomb law, another equation is obtained, namely,
"Curl E = 0".
For an electric charge moving with a constant velocity, one can conclude the magnetic force exerted on a moving test charge. For this purpose, the Lorentz transformations are used in order to connect a reference frame to the moving charge. Thus, the electric charge will be static in this reference frame. At this step, one can obtain the electric force exerted by the static charge on the test charge. This force can be properly derived by the Coulomb Law in the moving reference frame. By applying the inverse Lorentz transformations, it can be shown that the force exerted by the moving electric charge on the test charge (in the laboratory frame) is obtained. A part of this force is named as the magnetic force exerted by the moving charge on the test charge (in the laboratory frame). Afterwards, the magnetic field produced by the moving electric charge (with a constant velocity), the so-called the Biot-Savart Law is concluded.
By taking the divergence of the Biot-Savart law, one can obtain the equation
"Divergence B = 0".
Alternatively, taking the curl of the Biot-Savart law, another equation is obtained, namely,
"Curl H = J".
Please note that all the four Maxwell's equations (time independent) are based on the Coulomb Law as well as the Lorentz transformations.
Hence, no one is allowed to exclude the Lorentz transformations from the Maxwell's equations (time independent).
I know what you mean from deformation of the light signals as well as the time dependent (time varying) electromagnetic fields between the reference frames of Special Relativity. Please be informed that light signals are the time dependent electromagnetic fields, not the static electromagnetic fields. It should be noted that the Lorentz transformations are valid only for the static Electromagnetic fields (i.e. time independent fields), not for the time dependent fields, such as light signals and time varying electromagnetic fields. The reason is that an acceleration can be attributed to the time varying electromagnetic fields (such as light signals); and hence, its behavior cannot be explained within the framework of special relativity (i.e. the Lorentz transformations).
Best regards,
Houshyar Noshad
Facts
1) EM waves can be derived from Maxwell equations
2) The EM waves are consistent with the Lorenz transformations (form invariant under this)
3) Maxwell equations can be given covariant form (consistent with special relativity)
All three of these facts are well explained in countless sources, it is idocy to try to deny.
I agree with Juan and in conflict with Thierry. I wrote all the things should be told, and after this note, I will not write further comments regarding this matter.
I strongly recommend Thierry to study electrodynamics and concentrate on solving the problems as well as its mathematical features. All the notes that Juan and I have released are sufficiently informative.
Dear Thierry, concerning your advice to me to study electromagnetism, I would like to inform you that I have focused most of my life in the field of electrodynamics, mathematical physics and its history.
No one can find a nonsense comment in my notes. They are quite informative and acceptable for a physicist who has deep knowledge in electrodynamics.
There is nothing wrong with Max’s axial vector maths It is the conclusion that is illogical. He showed that lines of force behaved like vortex structures in a hypothetical fluid. then ignored the logical obvious that the magnetic lines of force are the eyes of the vortexes. Collectively they rotate magnetism in either clockwise or anticlockwise vortexes around the long axes of magnets and coils. Like spins attract......The force on conductor doesn't need an axial vector to describe its direction. To paraphrase Dylan; "You don't need a weatherman to show you where the wind blows".
Houshyar Noshad , Insightful analysis, fleshing out and rationalising much oversimplistic history, i.e. Maxwell's important orthogonal 'curl' is completely ignored in current physics, and I found using it as Poincare's Sphere even allows a classical reproduction of QM's data! i.e. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012
You should also be interested in this, just published; www.isaacpub.org/images/PaperPDF/TP_100087_2019070910523565700.pdf
But I importantly disagree with your characterizations; " acceleration can be attributed to the time varying electromagnetic fields (such as light signals); and hence, its behavior cannot be explained within the framework of special relativity (i.e. the Lorentz transformations)" . Try the LT as the Maxwell near/far field TZ it came from, a 2-fluid plasma where the electrons always CHANGE THE SPEED of EN signals to the new LOCAL c. This actually consistently COMPLETES the StR as Einsteins 1952 conception, removing all the issues.
Do comment. On my RG paper blogs if you prefer.
Ed, Which of Maxwell's equations do you want to get rid of? Faraday's Law? The Lorentz force? Ampère’s Circuital Law? Gauss's Law? Ohm's Law? The Equation of Continuity? Curl A = B? Or do you want to get rid of displacement current?
In all their simplicity, compactness and elegance, Maxwell’s equations have linked electricity and magnetism with geometry, topology and physics and have redefined our perception of space and nature.
THE MIND OF SCIENCE (Book)
Dear Ed Gerck ,
your statement “the B field is caused by charges in motion, exclusively” is in strange contradiction to the Maxwell equations in empty space, which say that the rotation of the B field corresponds to the time derivative of the electrical field E.
Your statement also implies that you seem to know the mechanism how elementary particles create magnetic moments. Are there really charges in motion involved, with a movement pattern which generates a B field but does not cause any radiation?
Dear Thierry De Mees
,you are right, charges are involved in the creation of electromagnetic waves. But the creation can have been long ago and then has no influence on the ongoing process described by the Maxwell equations in empty space.
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
You wrote: "But the creation can have been long ago and then has no influence on the ongoing process described by the Maxwell equations in empty space."
I have never agreed with this point of view, however, I used similar reasoning to be able to perform a mathematically approximate calculation (this kinematic link could be established by an appropriate generalization of the Lorentz transformation) in order to perform a link between the study of the behavior of accelerated point source in a Galilean reference system and the behavior of non accelerated point sources in this same reference system. Excerpt (my last contribution in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_an_accelerated_charge_radiate_in_its_rest_frame) :
>
My point of view is correctly expressed by this excerpt (from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko%27s_equations) :
>
Dear Rommel Nana Dutchou ,
you were right, if the divergence of the electric field in the wave would not be zero.
Dear Ed Gerck,
"All: Citing Jefimenko or Heaviside in physics is similar to citing Batman or Superman. It does not work, and physics is not decided by quotes, unlike human humanities. Physics is decided by Nature, by experiments."
I answered you in my last contribution of the following discussion:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_formulate_Hubble_law_and_expansion_of_universe_in_the_context_of_special_relativity
Dear Ed,
I prefer to let people express themselves as they like and let the others filter them out as they wish. There is no science without skepticism.
As the name says, an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component. The magnetic component has an influence on moving charges. Jefimenko’s analogy then simply means that a gravitational influence on moving masses exists.
Hi Ed Gerck ,
you say that magnetic fields and electric fields do not cause each other but are different appearances of the same source, moving charges. You also say that the Lorentz transformation expresses this circumstance.
I can follow this argumentation, but then your additional argument, the Maxwell equations would express a causal relation between electric and magnetic fields is not comprehensible.
Differential equations only express relations and do not contain any information about cause and effect.
If we consider the Maxwell equations, we could say “time variant electric fields cause magnetic fields” and “time variant magnetic fields cause electric fields”.
But assigning cause and effect to differential equations is an interpretation problem. It is not intrinsically expressed in differential equations.
Dear Thierry De Mees
,To your comment “the existence of a photon”:
Mathematically, waves and particles are related by Fourier transform and both only exist in our imagination. We need a view beyond waves and particles.
Dear Ed Gerck ,
a slit experiment describes the behaviour of complete emissions from specific sources and allows the observation of interference effects and nothing else. Conclusions concerning specific quantized elementary parts of emissions (photons/electrons), based upon slit experiment results, are not possible.
Dear Thierry,
the double slit experiment only shows, that electrons emitted by a point source show an interference pattern. It does not give any hint, how we can interpret this result.
This does not mean that I prefer an other interpretation as de Broglie, but my point is that it is only an interpretation of the result.
By the way, considering electrons and protons as trapped light is something which could be possible (and useful in a theory beyond waves and particles).
Dear Ed Gerck ,
the (impressive) experiment in the YouTube video clearly shows that we need a concept beyond waves and particles.
Dear Thierry De Mees
,the only statement in the ( journalistically very good) YouTube video, you are referencing, is that there is no gamma correction in the gravitational interaction of masses moving with high speed relative to each other.
But an alternative expression has not been presented. The alternative expression should take into account gravitomagnetism. But it seems that concerning gravitomagnetism, physics has a gap.
Dear Thierry De Mees
,"no gamma correction" is synonym to "there is only one mass".
"p=gamma*m*v" still supports SRT(!)
Only "inertial mass" = "gravitational mass" is disproved.
Dear Thierry
p=gamma*m*v means increasing inertia. (I do not say increasing inertial mass)
Well, Thierry, the gamma factor applies to the momentum p and informs us that we need a lot more energy to increase the velocity closer to the speed of light.
Thierry, the LHC guys "feel" this gamma factor with its influence on inertia during acceleration of their particles. Would they belief you, if you tell them that they only need to adpat their coils to "optical deformations"?
Wikipedia seems to think that the cross product of two vectors is a vector - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product - is that incorrect?
Dear Thierry De Mees
,many details of the current theories of electromagnetism and special relativity may be wrong, but "p=gamma*m*v" is correct and obviously describes a velocity dependent inertial mass.
The only thing in the momentum/mass context, which may be wrong is "inertial mass=gravitational mass" for masses in different reference systems.
Dear Thierry De Mees
,It is obvious that controlling of high energy protons in the LHC ring with radius R is possible. Controlling means that the magnetic field B, which keeps protons with charge e on track are well known. The energy E of the protons is also known.
We therefore know evB=mv²/R or eRB=mv and mv²/2 =E.
We then get v=2E/eRB and m=(eRB)²/2E.
The control dynamics then show relations between E and B which are accurately compliant with velocities very close to c and also to m=gamma * m0. How would you interpret these experimental results?
@thierry
Yes the gamma factor refers to light deformation and nothing else. I was searching this line for few months,, even it is directly related to the refractive index of the medium. I got direct proof of it in few steps. Thank you for sharing this line.
Thiery
"EM fields are not observable by light"
Light is an EM field.
YOU CANNOT SEE LIGHT?
2
I think em field is not same as described for light it is something else. there are two basic differences between light and EM field.
1) Light can be explained by oscillatory theory including all its properties and always make reference to a feed source means require external energy.
2) EM is not explainable by oscillatory theory and no external energy is needed e.g. magnet. It is a kind of a peculiar closed system !
Light in the visible range is a mixture of different wavelengths of EM radiation from about 500 to 900 nm
Dont see why anyone should have a problem with this.
Its a fact.
Maybe revise what is meant by the EM spectrum. All the radiation from radio waves to gamma rays.
Dear All, I wrote previously:
>
We can make an analogy with the theory of the Thomas precession, where one wants to give a physical interpretation to the mathematical reality according to which the composition of two special transformations of Lorentz, when they are non-collinear, is not directly equivalent to a special transformation of Lorentz since it must be combined with a rotation. My thought has always been that it may be a mistake to want to use a sequence of uniform motion to follow a material point whose motion is accelerated. This can be illustrated by this attached image taken on the internet.
Exorcising Oersted and Maxwell
Since the ancients magnetism has been tinged with an inexplicable mystical strangeness which verged on spooky and sometimes even embraced the paranormal. Perhaps this is why cosmologists still sheer away from it, or if anything hold magnetism incidental to gravity.
They seem to have taken a lead from Newton who when asked what magnetism is replied “I make no hypothesis.” but peculiarly thought it inversely proportional to the cube of distance.
Oersted though had no qualms about defining it. It encircled its conductor as his magnet/compass attested. The counter-intuitiveness of this was unheeded. Does an arrow have a wind rotating around its shaft? Clearly not but a current in a conductor has a magnetic wind that does!****
If, in the absence of the magnet conjuring on his desk, Oersted had observed that two co-parallel currents attract, then he would have logically (and correctly) concluded that the co-parallel magnetic wind from each conductor lowered the pressure between them, therefore attraction…opposite currents increase pressure and repel.
A current coil then has an axial vortex of magnetism within and surrounding it. Aligned coils with like spin attract….. North poles are anticlockwise poles A-poles and south poles are clockwise C-poles.
Forty years later Maxwell compounded the counter-intuitiveness with: “An event (a current) in the ‘x’ direction encountering an event (magnetism) in the ‘y’ direction causes an event (a force) in the ‘z’ direction?” Clearly logically it does not, so the direction of one of the parameters is wrong!****
When we see that magnetism rationally flows co-parallel with its current, logical reasons manifest for electromagnetic phenomena.
A conductor through the diameter of a magnetic vortex is attracted by the co-parallel vortex wind on one side reducing pressure and repelled by the anti-parallel wind on the other side increasing pressure. Reverse the current reverses the force. The right hand screw rule is terminated. The perpendicularitis is cured.
Amidst the restructure of magnetism we loose Maxwell’s convoluted interpretation of a polarized electromagnetic wave and its lunatic butterfly graphic image, because all the wave is now one plane polarized.
Moreover, since both the electric and magnetic transverse vectors are aligned, then one can be redundant, and that turns out to be the electric vector.
After a few wavelengths the wave becomes purely magnetic.
For the cosmos to be au fait with magnetism it must exorcise the Oersted Illusion and Maxwell’s extrapolations.
With magnetism out of its spooky box, and since current coils and magnets operate in space, we can reasonably ask;
“What are they spinning?”
and “Is gravity incident to electromagnetism?” which it is.
All this plays havoc with Einstein and counter-intuitive electromagnetic tensors.
Blake Taylor, author of ‘Bi-verse, The Cosmic Split’
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Collaboration