When Orestead discovered the magnetic effect of electric current in 1821, Ampere formulated equations describing it’s mechanism using electric parameters; although it solved the problem mathematically, but it never justified the mechanism through which the force operates, and worst of all it disconnected the Logical Mathematical Interpretation (LMI) from the created Forced Imaginary Mathematical interpretation (FIMI), hence how the current physical advancement could have looked if the formulas derived in “The Magnetic Interaction” at: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/MY.pdf , was discovered?
Dear Mahmoud,
I scanned your quite interesting research paper quickly due to lack of time. I printed it out to study at length when time allows.
I thought you might be interested by this experiment regarding magnetic fields interaction at the macroscopic level that by similarity also apply to magnetic interaction between electrons, as confirmed by the Kotler et al experiment reported in 2014 (Second paper referred).
I thought you might also be interested in how the magnetic interaction between electron and nucleus can stabilize the electron in the ground state orbital of the hydrogen atom (third paper)
Best Regards
http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1
https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf
Dear Andre'
Many thanks for these documents. My question going back to 1821, when Ampere formulated a formula to explain the phenomenon discovered by Orestead, but Eq. (8) in “The Magnetic Interaction” at: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/MY.pdf , give that force with logical explanation. This formula helped to explain Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R) as in "The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism"
http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/68_IJFPS_Sept_2014_72_79.pdf , and as you may remember the debate around radiation energy was so buzzed, till Planck got the formula E=hv, for energy, the magnetic force formula helped in showing the existence of magnetic force embedded in radiation as given by Eq. (24) in "The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model" at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf
While a different version of Compton effect is given in "The Compton Effect Re-Visited" at: http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf , and the "The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained" is given at:
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf
And, "Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)" is given at: http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf
As you can see, Eq. (8) above if discovered by Ampere, the whole history of physics could have changed. The question is, can anyone prove Eq. (8) or Eq. (24) are wrong? Even Einstein, mentioned three times before his death, that he didn't understand what quanta (photon) is, and Eq. (24)showed there is force in radiation , meaning there is no photon, if there is no photon, many papers needs re-write. So did you pass though both formulas before?
Kare. Please read my reply to Andre' and tell me just a single point which is wrong. Or is Eq. (8) which is Fm= B_1 B_2 r_m”2 c (8) is wrong, or Eq. (24), please specify.
@Mahmoud. You should use your talents and energy to something more constructive than "repairing" Maxwell's equations. That is a dead-end project.
Kåre Olaussen. If I have such talent and energy, as you mentioned, isn’t better been used to repair these historical mistakes, not seen by many, including you?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics