André,

I applaud you for not only starting this thread, but to also include such a concise overview of both the Lorenz and Maxwell consistencies and inconsistencies. I actually found myself lol when I read the Maxwell inconsistency group, which by the way seems to fully support the great necessity for this thread's discussion.

I would like to address the "Moving magnet and conductor problem" (MMCP) which John Hodges brought up, which is a very good point having to do with the mysterious "reference frame" we have all had to wrap our minds around. This MMCP I would say is perhaps very close to the question of the existence of the aether, or perhaps the more politically correct term " supporting medium ", using Andre's terminology. Maxwell believed in the aether, as did most physicists in the 19th century. I was surprised to see that Maxwell's interpretation is actually "consistent with self-sustaining and self-propelling of localized transversely oscillating energy quanta without any need for a supporting medium", but have not had a chance to read Andre's link supporting that statement. I think Maxwell may have stated that the aether was necessary for his interpretation, but unsure (Andre?).

Back to the MMCP...

As the MMCP thought experiment states, the conductor experiences a magnetic force in the frame of the magnet and an electric force in the frame of the conductor, seeming to have two different descriptions depending on the frame of reference of the observer. I think the answer to this is simple if one believes that the aether exists as Maxwell did. That answer is simply that the E and B fields, although unique, interact as one, where say an E induced force is traded or interacted by the B induced force as one trades its potential energy for kinetic, thereby appearing to be two different forces, yet is simply an interaction of the two. But this must happen in the "space" between the magnet and conductor. Therefore there must be some sort of structure between them where these forces interact, an aether.

I personally would like to begin this thread at a 10,000 foot basic level, leaving derivatives, second derivatives, global or gauge invariance aside as we attempt to simply explore the above with perhaps a second thought experiment for a minute:

You're traveling at a constant speed in your vehicle and decide to turn right without changing the speed on your speedometer. You experience a force pushing you to your left, while you react that force with an equal and opposite force with your body. Newton states that your body therefore must be pushing against something. The question is, what is it pushing against?

The short answer must be in the same realm as the term "field" we use to describe both E and B, and furthermore, since this same "inertial" field exists in the vacuum of space, then it also must be associated with properties of epsilon0 and mu0, which are also associated with E and B. Therefore, your body is pushing against something dictated by the same properties which describe electromagnetics. If this is true, then this inertial field must have already been "spun-up" (when you first accelerated) all around you, expecting you and your vehicle to continue at a constant velocity along your initial vector direction prior to making the turn. The same must then be true when you first accelerated, forcing the inertial field to spin-up until reaching that final constant velocity. The inertial forces appear only when a change in direction or velocity occurs, much like electrodynamics.

So, in your inertial frame while you experience a reaction force from the aether, the aether experiences a reaction force from you in it's inertial frame (which is everywhere, also encompassing your reference frame).

In other words, what we typically consider as an E or B field as created by changes in voltage or current, could also very well apply to changes in direction or velocity (respectively). If true, then perhaps all of this is not as complicated as we're making it out to be, if we could simply describe how the aether operates, which I believe I have discovered. It is only because all matter is made up of charges, do we experience the forces we describe as inertia.

Hoping this thought experiment leads to some very constructive interaction here.

- J.L. Brady

follow

The problem is a bit deeper.

Maxwell's equations have issues when applied to moving bodies - The asymmetry called "the moving magnet and conductor problem" that helped form special relativity. I think the theoretical solution to this problem can point the way forward.

my dear André Michaud your explanation is very good, i welcome it...beside this Quantum Mechanics has not yet been reconciled with electromagnetism is foundation issues in QM.

Dear s h s,

You are right. QM has not yet been reconciled with the "Lorenz" electromagnetism, but from what I understand, it can be reconciled with the "Maxwell" electromagnetism.

Here is a possible solution that might lead to this reconciliation from the Maxwell perspective:

https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

Best Regards, André

@André Michaud

i go through it..

This doesn't matter anymore, since the correct statements are understood and the meaningless ones don't matter.

The only properties that do matter are global Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance. Electrodynamics is the unique theory that is invariant under global Lorentz transformations and local gauge transformations, whose conserved charge can be identified with the electric charge, whose Lagrangian contains up to two derivatives and whose equations of motion, also, contain at most two derivatives and the classical theory, that's completely described by Maxwell's equations, can be perfectly well understood as the classical limit of quantum electrodynamics, whose perturbative description was worked out by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in the 1940s and was completed by Dyson, Ward and Takahashi in the 1950s.

Beyond perturbation theory it's possible to study quantum electrodynamics on the lattice-curiously enough, the work here is much more sketchy.

New experiments with cold atoms, trapped ions and nanomagnets may provide motivation for more work in this direction. But there's no point in trying to relive history.

Dear Stam,

You wrote: "The only properties that do matter are global Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance... Electrodynamics ...can be perfectly well understood as the classical limit of quantum electrodynamics, whose perturbative description was worked out by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in the 1940s and was completed by Dyson, Ward and Takahashi in the 1950s"

This is false, as directly stated by Feynman in his his famous "Feynman Lectures on Physics":

"There are difficulties associated with the ideas of Maxwell's theory which are not solved by and not directly associated with quantum mechanics...when electromagnetism is joined to quantum mechanics, the difficulties remain".

Ref: Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B and Sands M. (1964) The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Addison-Wesley, Vol. II, p. 28-1.

It seems that you did not read the correct references.

Neither classical/relativistic mechanics, nor Electrodynamics nor Quantum Mechanics correctly account for the magnetic field nor for its energy.

Moreover, the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian do not deal correctly with kinetic energy:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Best Regards, André

André,

I applaud you for not only starting this thread, but to also include such a concise overview of both the Lorenz and Maxwell consistencies and inconsistencies. I actually found myself lol when I read the Maxwell inconsistency group, which by the way seems to fully support the great necessity for this thread's discussion.

I would like to address the "Moving magnet and conductor problem" (MMCP) which John Hodges brought up, which is a very good point having to do with the mysterious "reference frame" we have all had to wrap our minds around. This MMCP I would say is perhaps very close to the question of the existence of the aether, or perhaps the more politically correct term " supporting medium ", using Andre's terminology. Maxwell believed in the aether, as did most physicists in the 19th century. I was surprised to see that Maxwell's interpretation is actually "consistent with self-sustaining and self-propelling of localized transversely oscillating energy quanta without any need for a supporting medium", but have not had a chance to read Andre's link supporting that statement. I think Maxwell may have stated that the aether was necessary for his interpretation, but unsure (Andre?).

Back to the MMCP...

As the MMCP thought experiment states, the conductor experiences a magnetic force in the frame of the magnet and an electric force in the frame of the conductor, seeming to have two different descriptions depending on the frame of reference of the observer. I think the answer to this is simple if one believes that the aether exists as Maxwell did. That answer is simply that the E and B fields, although unique, interact as one, where say an E induced force is traded or interacted by the B induced force as one trades its potential energy for kinetic, thereby appearing to be two different forces, yet is simply an interaction of the two. But this must happen in the "space" between the magnet and conductor. Therefore there must be some sort of structure between them where these forces interact, an aether.

I personally would like to begin this thread at a 10,000 foot basic level, leaving derivatives, second derivatives, global or gauge invariance aside as we attempt to simply explore the above with perhaps a second thought experiment for a minute:

You're traveling at a constant speed in your vehicle and decide to turn right without changing the speed on your speedometer. You experience a force pushing you to your left, while you react that force with an equal and opposite force with your body. Newton states that your body therefore must be pushing against something. The question is, what is it pushing against?

The short answer must be in the same realm as the term "field" we use to describe both E and B, and furthermore, since this same "inertial" field exists in the vacuum of space, then it also must be associated with properties of epsilon0 and mu0, which are also associated with E and B. Therefore, your body is pushing against something dictated by the same properties which describe electromagnetics. If this is true, then this inertial field must have already been "spun-up" (when you first accelerated) all around you, expecting you and your vehicle to continue at a constant velocity along your initial vector direction prior to making the turn. The same must then be true when you first accelerated, forcing the inertial field to spin-up until reaching that final constant velocity. The inertial forces appear only when a change in direction or velocity occurs, much like electrodynamics.

So, in your inertial frame while you experience a reaction force from the aether, the aether experiences a reaction force from you in it's inertial frame (which is everywhere, also encompassing your reference frame).

In other words, what we typically consider as an E or B field as created by changes in voltage or current, could also very well apply to changes in direction or velocity (respectively). If true, then perhaps all of this is not as complicated as we're making it out to be, if we could simply describe how the aether operates, which I believe I have discovered. It is only because all matter is made up of charges, do we experience the forces we describe as inertia.

Hoping this thought experiment leads to some very constructive interaction here.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

As you see, I made good on your invitation to start this separate discussion myself.

Yes, the Maxwell inconsistency group is the section that ate most of my time... ending up with zip ;)

Of course, my specific field is electromagnetism at the elementary particles level, so I will have comments regarding this specific level, but will leave dealing with electromagnetism at the macroscopic level from the Maxwell interpretation perspective to people more knowledgeable than me in this regard, unless something seems to me inconsistent with the fundamental particles level.

Yes. You are right saying that Maxwell stated that the aether was necessary for his interpretation, but in his time, the only existing wave concept sustaining a transverse oscillation was the same concept that has been used since to describe and explain shear waves in solid media (check for s-waves in relation with deep Earth sounding).

Also, Maxwell was interested in explaining the behavior of light "at the observable macroscopic level". He did not consider the possibility that light might be quantized at the submicroscopic level and actually could be made of separate quanta, which could even become suspected only about 30 years later with Wien's experiments combined with Planck hypothesis, then confirmed by Einstein's photoelectric proof.

The de Broglie hypothesis in the 1930's then allowed to conceive of the possibility of a localized photon made of a self-sustaining transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy half-quantum coupled with a longitudinally oriented momentum energy half-quantum, that could then self-propel without any need for a sustaining medium. Maxwell had no way to even imagine such a possibility before de Broglie came up with a possible inner structure of a localized photon compliant with his interpretation.

But nobody lit up to this possibility in the 1930's, because the community had already adopted the Lorenz interpretation wall to wall, from which perspective, this cannot logically be conceived of.

Like you, I also think that this discussion about the foundation of electromagnetism is long overdue.

Best Regards, André

It seems like a faculty problem. Lightning certainly happens differentially to wind.

Dear Andre

this paper might give some direction of thoughts to the topic: http://viXra.org/abs/1704.0082

Wave Particle and Luminiferous Trinity of the Light.

Many thanks

Seyed

Stam Nicolis J.L. Brady Jack Don McLovin @

Classical electrodynamics doesn't have the difficulties that Feynman mentions-that, unfortunately, isn't correct, even though Feynman may have said it. Opinions are different from physics and it's useful to learn to distinguish them. Feynman is correct in that the issues of quantum electrodynamics are different from those of classical electrodynamics.

A nice, technical, article that explains classical electrodynamics fully and shows explicitly how to deal with any issues it might have is https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM2820.pdf

The ``difficulties'' that remain, when quantum effects are taken into account for electrodynamics don't have anything to do with the classical limit.

Kinetic energy isn't a Lorentz invariant quantity-that's why it's not a meaningful quantity by itself.

Magnetic energy isn't well-defined, simply because the separation into electric and magnetic fields isn't a Lorentz invariant notion, either.

The total energy of the electromagnetic field is a Lorentz invariant quantity and perfectly well defined.

Dear Seyed,

I read your paper, and find your theory logical and well explained. Logically grounded on the potential existence of ether, on the Lorenz interpretation and on SR concepts.

It is the first time I see a coherent theory for a logical and electromagnetism compliant solution in replacement of the concept of dark energy and a logical avenue for reconciling localized electromagnetic photons with the electromagnetic wave concept.

I note that your fig 2.2 is Maxwell interpretation compliant (both fields mutually inducing each other in alternance) grounded on the correct idea that both fields represent a quantum of real physically existing energy that alternates between both states by oscillating transversely to the direction of motion of the photon.

I note however that your Fig 2.3 represents the Lorenz interpretation that both fields do not mutually induce each other in alternance as you correctly represent with your figure 2.2., but synchronously increase and diminish in phase, which is precisely the issue that this discussion is about. So your contribution is welcome and brings new ideas to be considered.

For reference and to help visualization, I attach a representation of the Maxwell interpretation of both fields mutually inducing each other in alternance by being 180 degrees out of phase, which is the real foundation of Maxwell's theory.

Best Regards, André

Lorentz was trying to find a symmetry in Maxwell's equations of a kind that didn't exist. Maxwell's equations in fact contain cylindrical symmetry. Einstein never grasped this fact. Maxwell's original theory is based on a physical medium for the propagation of light. It was abandoned when mainstream decided to adopt Einstein's theories. Einstein's theories are at variance with Maxwell's original theory, but mainstream have reconciled relativity with a historically revised version of Maxwell's theory that is heavily distorted from the original.

Dear Stam,

From your second time repeated comments, to which I already answered, I see that you do not understand the issue at hand. Negating the reality of the issue is not a worthwile contribution to this discussion.

Best Regards, André

Many thanks for your comment.

Seyed

Dear Frederick,

Note that the Lorenz interpretation refers to Ludvig Lorenz, and not to Hendrik Lorentz who defined the Lorentz force equation.

If you were actually referring to Lorenz, I agree that this was an attempt at establishing symmetry, and that as you say, within the frame of a 3D (4D) space geometry, the only symmetry possible, it seems to me, is a cylindrical symmetry. Note that in the trispatial geometry, this symmetry becomes a local transverse reciprocal swing symmetry that can be separated from longitudinal motion, which cannot be accomplished with a cylindrical symmetry within a 3D (4D) space geometry. At least, I don't see how.

You wrote: "Maxwell's original theory is based on a physical medium for the propagation of light. It was abandoned when mainstream decided to adopt Einstein's theories. Einstein's theories are at variance with Maxwell's original theory, but mainstream have reconciled relativity with a historically revised version of Maxwell's theory that is heavily distorted from the original."

I completely agree with you here. SR is not even Maxwell equations compliant, since the length contraction concept does not account for the increased energy that Maxwell's first equations makes it impossible would not be adiabatically induced in contracting masses.

In the last years of his life however, I think that Einstein understood that electromagnetism was the way to go, but his conclusion was rejected out of hand without even being explored:

Here is what Wheeler wrote in a book on gravitation that he co-authored with Ignazio Ciufolini in 1995:

"A distinguished physicist even published in his very last years' works, the main point of which is to claim that gravitation follows the pattern of electromagnetism. This thesis, we cannot accept, and the community of physics, quite rightly, does not accept." (Page 391 in "Gravitation and Inertia").

Best Regards, André

The 3rd experiment of the amateur experiments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=5s ) rejects the Ampere's Law part of Maxwell's equations. Oddly, the measurement of the constant of Ampere's equation uses an experiment exactly as the video suggests ( the length involved is the SHORTEST wire).

The (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327158807_Two_different_types_of_magnetic_field) suggests a solution for the "moving magnet and conductor problem" and other related issues including why electromagnetic signals have a speed of the speed of light while coulomb forces measured travel instantaneously (many time the speed of light).

The (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489961_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_Replacement_of_Special_Relativity) suggests the interpretation of Special Relativity consistent with the modified Maxwell's equations.

I suppose the STOE model is too revolutionary. But it does explain the experiment and observations that reject Maxwell.

Hodge

Dear John,

From what I understand, the Coulomb force does not travel "instantaneously" nor "many times the speed of light" it simply is "permanently ambient" between electric charges, which seems to be the only possible explanation for the fact that it induces energy in an infinitesimally progressive manner in charges as these charges move away or toward each other. So it does not travel at all apparently.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

I think the experiment precludes this possibility - but that is a subject of another question.

Dear André, Yes Lorenz the Dane also caused trouble for Maxwell even before the end of the 1860s, and Maxwell was quite angry with him for having missed the point. It seems that Lorenz made the mistake that many aether supporters have made since, of mixing up the medium for the propagation of light with the medium that underlies the Coulomb force. The latter is more fundamental and applies to the inter-particle bonds within the former. Maxwell never intended the speed of light to relate in any way to Coulomb's law. The Lorenz error, known to its supporters by the euphemism "The Lorenz Gauge", was later built into Lorentz the Dutchman's error, and it's because Einstein's theories follow on from Lorentz's that the Lorenz approach to Maxwell's equations carries into today's textbooks. In fact, I've said on e-mail threads that all the trouble that began after Maxwell, began with Lorenz.

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "It seems that Lorenz made the mistake that many aether supporters have made since, of mixing up the medium for the propagation of light with the medium that underlies the Coulomb force. The latter is more fundamental and applies to the inter-particle bonds within the former. Maxwell never intended the speed of light to relate in any way to Coulomb's law. "

I agree that the Coulomb force is the most fundamental law, irrespective of whether the concept of aether is involved or not.

However, since a second partial derivative of an equation involving the electric field also gives the speed of light, I doubt that Maxwell did not make the connection since he was the one who discovered this connection. See equations (4) and subsequent explanation in this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue4/G0704032039.pdf

All the more so since his first equation is actually the Gauss equation for the electric field, which is in reality the Coulomb equation as generalized by Gauss as he defined E by removing one charge from the Coulomb equation. Then since E= q /(4πεor2), and the Coulomb equation is F = qE = q2 /(4πεor2), it suffices to add another charge anywhere in the virtual "electric" field of the first charge to instantly recuperate the initial Coulomb equation.

The "Electric field" in fact is just an idealized concept that allows visualizing the Coulomb force as varying as a function of the inverse square of the distance from a maximum located at the location of the remaining charge.

Ref: Sears, Zemansky, Young. (1982) University Physics, 6th edition. Addison Wesley. Page 470.

The adiabatic momentum energy of each charge is then continuously induced in them as a function of the inverse of the distance separating them:

E= rF=rqE=q2 /(4πεor)

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear John,

I looked at the experiments, but as I mentioned before, I studied, analyzed and understood electromagnetism grounded on Maxwell's interpretation mostly at the level of elementary particles. I do not know enough however to be able to completely extrapolate and explain the macroscopic electromagnetic behavior of large collections of atoms from this understanding of the elementary particles level.

This integration remains to be explored and established. So I cannot determine how this macroscopic behavior can be explained as being compliant with what I understand of the submicroscopic level.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

The E in the electromagnetic wave equation (equation (4) in your article) is based on the relationship E = −∂A/∂t, where A = curl B. It is therefore based on Faraday’s law and not on Gauss’s law. Maxwell’s fourth equation in his original set of eight is E = −gradΨ −∂A/∂t + v×B. The first term on the right hand side of the equation is Gauss’s law (which in essence is Coulomb’s law as you have correctly pointed out). But only the second term on the right hand side is involved in the derivation of the EM wave equation. In Maxwell's original 1864 paper, the Gauss's law (electrostatic) term cancels out during the derivation.

Dear Frederick,

Agreed to all you said.

You wrote "In Maxwell's original 1864 paper, the Gauss's law (electrostatic) term cancels out during the derivation."

But this does not change the nature of the electric field E, from which the speed of light can be derived as Maxwell did, and to my knowledge, there is only one way that E can be resolved with established constants and known variables, which is the definition given in Sears, Zemansky and Young and other references, unless you can point me to another definition that can also be resolved with another set of constants that cannot be related to the speed of light.

Otherwise, it seems that the relation between the Coulomb equation and the speed of light is maintained, just as it was also established for the magnetic field by Maxwell, both relations being what caused him to conclude that light was electromagnetic in nature.

All the more so that the speed of light is an integral part of the set of constants that defines εo = 1/4πc210-7, itself a constant which is part of the Coulomb equation.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

In Maxwell's 1864 paper, he derives the EM wave equation only for B (= µH). He doesn't derive it for E. In his fourth equation in the original listing of eight "Maxwell's Equations" in the same paper, he shows that E has three possible sources. In modern textbooks an EM wave equation is derived for E, but it is clearly based on E = −∂A/∂t and not on Coulomb's law, because the E has to be the same as the E in Faraday's law otherwise we couldn't combine the two curl equations during the derivation.

Then it gets interesting. When explaining displacement current outside of the context of Maxwell's original theory, the textbooks use the E from Coulomb's law, where div E = ρ/ε. Had they used E = −∂A/∂t instead, then div E would always equal zero and so the problem that they raise would not exist.

Finally, it's only in certain systems of units that the speed of light enters into the coefficient in Coulomb's law. This leads us to a separate discussion on the Weber-Kohlrausch experiment of 1856 and its physical interpretation.But it won't lead to the conclusion that Coulomb's law has any direct connection with the speed of light. It will be an issue of ratios relating to a medium in which Coulomb's law is involved in the bonding forces within that medium.

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "In Maxwell's 1864 paper, he derives the EM wave equation only for B (= µH). He doesn't derive it for E."

Thank you for this information. I missed the correct info then.

But then do you know who derived it for E and where can I find the formal paper in which it was initially defined? This is the right place to settle such issues.

You wrote: "In modern textbooks an EM wave equation is derived for E, but it is clearly based on E = −∂A/∂t and not on Coulomb's law, because the E has to be the same as the E in Faraday's law otherwise we couldn't combine the two curl equations during the derivation."

If you explore to clarify the first level definition of E = −∂A/∂t, you will still find that it also resolves to E= q/(4πεor2), because this is how E was defined at first level by Gauss.

To my knowledge, there exists no other first level (numerically resolvable with known constants and variables) definition of E. Whether using E = −∂A/∂t or E= q/(4πεor2), we always are speaking of the same E field.

Just like when using F=ma or F=dp/dt or F=m(dv/dt), we are always talking of the same fundamental acceleration equation, which by the way can also be seamlessly converted to the Coulomb force equation. In fact, all classical force equations can be resolved to the same F=ma definition, including the Coulomb equation, in fact, by means of the generalized Coulomb equation:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2256

You wrote: " Then it gets interesting. When explaining displacement current outside of the context of Maxwell's original theory, the textbooks use the E from Coulomb's law, where div E = ρ/ε. Had they used E = −∂A/∂t instead, then div E would always equal zero and so the problem that they raise would not exist."

This would be an idealized theoretical situation then, because since there exists only one physical reality out there, the Coulomb force cannot stop existing by ignoring it.

The Coulomb interaction between electrons and nuclei of atoms exists continuously, whatever hypothesis to the contrary we may elaborate. And the Coulomb equation and the Gauss equation for the electric field still allow calculating the real adiabatic energy induced in all charged particles in existence.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

You wrote: " Finally, it's only in certain systems of units that the speed of light enters into the coefficient in Coulomb's law."

Ok, then can you provide such a working equation for the Coulomb law resolvable to first level in which the speed of light is not involved?

Best Regards, André

I believe the following quote by Maxwell may be most indicative as to his insight into the "field" we are attempting to discern here:

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."

[James Clerk Maxwell (2013). “The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell”, p.564, Courier Corporation.]

My particular fence knothole I peer through as I attempt to grasp or describe this electromagnetic subject, encompasses an expertise of both a structural and mechanical background. A perspective quite unique from the standard physicist. We in this field work through many mechanical problems based upon a foundation of energy. These energy terms are also very representative to the E and B fields, in their potential and kinetic energy associations. I believe this is what Maxwell eludes to in his above quote.

With that said, I would like to address Andrés statement referencing Sears, Zemansky and Young, which I totally agree:

"The "Electric field" in fact is just an idealized concept that allows visualizing the Coulomb force as varying as a function of the inverse square of the distance from a maximum located at the location of the remaining charge."

In fact, I have found this to be true with many of the units we have invented through the centuries to help us visualize and quantify observables. Even the most generic Volt and Amp are culprits. As we attempt to apply a simple dimensional analysis of these units, we quickly find ourselves in a do-loop where V=IR, I=V/R, and R=V/A. This example of course boils down to the foundational charge, but then one must ask what is this charge. As we look deeper, we find that many more of our units such as say F and H only relate to how this charge moves (distance), or how fast it changes (time), or derivatives of the distance or velocity. Furthermore, we notice that F/s and H/s are simply reciprocals of Resistance R, leading back to the inevitable V=IR do-loop. Nature is much more simplistic than all of this, and needs no calculator to perform its function, nor does it attempt to maintain any particular "unit" we have invented for our purposes.

Another quick dimensional analysis example is that of the speed constant and of the basic properties of the vacuum of space εo and μ0, which also simply boil down to F/m and H/m respectively. Nothing new here, except that distance is now included in the mix.

I am not maintaining that we abolish our inventions, only perhaps understand that nature is all about its 3 units; that of charge, distance, and time, nothing else. In other words, nature is all about its charge moving dynamically within a specified mechanical 3D system (the aether). It is very easy to get lost in our own inventions, especially if those inventions can only define each other, not nature. We have spent much time successfully equating all of our invented units, but have fallen desperately short of describing the elusive charge, and the structural mechanical system defining how it dynamically flows. I believe this system has been revealed to me, which should be published later this year. This system is based only upon two laws of nature, that of symmetry and doubling, with charge simply consisting of integer values at the Plank level. Yet within this elegant system, properties of spin, the mysterious fractional charge and many other observables of the 16 SM particles and their anti-particles have been verified.

Therefore, if the charge is understood, and its mechanical distance and time dynamic aspects are understood, then of course all of our invented units are automatically defined starting from the initial C=Amp(sec)=F(V) unit equalities which we invented to separate the charge unit into the observable aspects of distance and time.

- J.L. Brady

Physics isn't textual analysis-it's pointless quoting what people write about technical subjects.

The total energy of the electromagnetic field is (a) a Lorentz invariant quantity and (b) a gauge invariant quantity. For any solution of Maxwell's equations it's possible to calculate it.

Feynman, incidentally, was correct in stating that the issues that are relevant for quantum electrodynamics don't bear directly on the issues of the classical limit.

What is relevant is that the confusion about the subject, as it evolved historically, doesn't have anything to do with the technical understanding, that only matters.

So the only thing that matters about Maxwell's equations is solving them and focusing on quantities that are gauge invariant and Lorentz invariant.

Dear J.L.Brady

Please have a look at this paper about the Amp's Law:

Unification of the Electromagnetic Force and Quantum Gravity

http://viXra.org/abs/1704.0027

This may shed light on the forces as we know them.

Many thanks

Seyed

Hi André,

The Coulomb force is irrotational. Curl E = 0. It is a radial force. The Faraday E field E = −∂A/∂t is rotational. Curl E = −∂B/∂t and so it is a transverse force which acts tangentially from a current carrying wire. I actually believe that the latter is a consequence of vorticity in the Coulomb field and that they are indeed all just part of the same root cause. But the light propagation mechanism is all about the transverse effects and how they propagate from vortex to vortex. Yes, the Coulomb force is ever present in the process, but no radial effect is propagating and so it is irrelevant to the wave effect. And that's why it cancelled in Maxwell's original derivation. The later EM wave equation that uses E is definitely using the Faraday/transverse E and not the Gauss's law radial E.

Mainstream of course don't recognize the idea that Faraday's E field above is merely the transverse part of a Coulomb field because they don't recognize the existence of a physical velocity field A underlying the E field lines of Coulomb's law.

The problem with the Lorenz gauge is that it implies that disturbances in the primary E field lines travel at the speed of light, whereas that speed is actually about propagated disturbances across an elastic solid in which the particles are bonded together by the Coulomb force. That's why Maxwell was so angry with Lorenz. Lorenz had missed the point.

Seyed,

Looks interesting. I will review. Thanks!

Have you found anything similar to this associated with the water molecule?

- J.L. Brady

What do you mean ?

Dear J.L.,

You mention that Maxwell wrote: "In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."

[James Clerk Maxwell (2013). “The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell”, p.564, Courier Corporation.]"

It is the first time I come across this quote.

I couldn't agree more. I always thought that this was how he understood energy, and that he was convinced that "Energy" has "physical existence" in the sense of a physically existing "substance". It was unclear at the time whether or not this "energy substance" was spread out as some sort of continuum through the universe, or if it was actually quantized into local self-sustaining quanta separated by physical spatial distances "real empty vacuum". The later discoveries by Wien and eventual actual scattering experiments with photons by Compton and Raman confirmed the second possibility.

That this energy making up all elementary electromagnetic particles, including their momentum energy can only have such "physical existence as a physically existing substance" is something that I analyzed and put in perspective in section titled "Photons, Electrons, Positrons, Exclusively made of Kinetic Energy" (page 4-5) of this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Glad to now have confirmation that this is in sync with Maxwell's conclusion.

You wrote the following in reference to my describing the "Electric field" as being an idealized concept: "In fact, I have found this to be true with many of the units we have invented through the centuries to help us visualize and quantify observables. Even the most generic Volt and Amp are culprits."

Complete agreement. We have defined a whole set of idealized generalized mathematical concepts in our attempts to figure out and measure what we observe as objects and processes in our real environment. However, these concepts tend to mutually build on each other leading to further idealized concepts further removed yet from physical reality that often become too general to allow clear analysis of the physical processes. The key out of this dead-end is to resolve the equations generated by these idealized concepts back to first level and retain only those that can be resolved with real physical constants and variables, giving results consistent with observation.

This is something that I analyze in Section "27. The Mathematical Thinking Mode" (pp 394-402) of the following paper, taking precisely the example of the development of the concept of the Electric field as an example: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

The first part of the paper is rather technical neurolinguistics material, but this section in pertinent to this particular issue that you raise.

I must say that I almost fell off my chair as I read this sentence from yours:

"I am not maintaining that we abolish our inventions, only perhaps understand that nature is all about its 3 units; that of charge, distance, and time, nothing else."

...because it is the first time that I meet someone who is aware of this!

You should then love what you will find in section "IX. The Fundamental C, m, s Dimensions Subset" and following two other sections of the following paper, titled "Defining εo and μo From First Principles and Defining the Fundamental Electromagnetic Equations Set":

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3347

You conclude: "Therefore, if the charge is understood, and its mechanical distance and time dynamic aspects are understood, then of course all of our invented units are automatically defined starting from the initial C=Amp(sec)=F(V) unit equalities which we invented to separate the charge unit into the observable aspects of distance and time."

Again, I couldn't agree more.

Best Regards, André

Dear Stam,

Contribution much closer to the issue at hand.

You wrote: "The total energy of the electromagnetic field is (a) a Lorentz invariant quantity and (b) a gauge invariant quantity. For any solution of Maxwell's equations it's possible to calculate it."

and

"So the only thing that matters about Maxwell's equations is solving them and focusing on quantities that are gauge invariant and Lorentz invariant."

Such concepts as "Lorentz invariant" and "gauge invariant" are precisely the sort of general idealized concepts many steps removed from first level equations that I just mentioned to J.L. as being too general by nature to allow clear analysis of the physical processes.

I think we need to be able to compare real data coming from the environment calculated with first level equations if we are to be able to separate what is idealized in true conformity with physical processes from what was idealized on faulty premises.

My conclusion is that the Lorenz interpretation is a faulty premise that hinders progress, contrary to Maxwell's, which is what J.L. and I saw eye to eye about in another conversation, then resulting in the setting up of this discussion.

This is what we are trying to clarify and put in true perspective.

Best Regards, André

Dear Frederick,

Bingo!

You wrote: "Yes, the Coulomb force is ever present in the process, but no radial effect is propagating and so it is irrelevant to the wave effect. And that's why it cancelled in Maxwell's original derivation. The later EM wave equation that uses E is definitely using the Faraday/transverse E and not the Gauss's law radial E."

Your mentioning that the Faraday E field is transverse, while Gauss's law is radial, just made me light up as to exactly what you were describing.

I completely agree with you. The radial Gauss law was successfully applied from the get go from the straightforward application of the Coulomb equation, but the transverse version of the Coulomb equation applicable to all elementary particles could be established only recently due to a major discovery by Paul Marmet, published in 2003.

Its original derivation was made in this 2007 paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257

It is related to the radial version in equation (20) in this paper:

https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

This transverse form allows calculating the amount of energy that transversely oscillates between the electric state and the magnetic state. The corresponding magnetic transverse form for calculating the same amount of energy when in transverse magnetic state is also provided.

You wrote: "Mainstream of course don't recognize the idea that Faraday's E field above is merely the transverse part of a Coulomb field because they don't recognize the existence of a physical velocity field A underlying the E field lines of Coulomb's law."

Well, I don't know about this, but from my perspective, mainstream don't recognize the idea because the Marmet discovery is fairly recent, and they simply don't know about it and those that know don't understand its implications. Explained in the first paper referenced previously.

I found that most in the community think only in terms of the Lorenz interpretation, which makes them unable to even understand Marmet's discovery.

The complete electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles derives directly from this Marmet discovery and de Broglie's 1930's hypothesis on the double-particle photon, both of which are in harmony with Maxwell's interpretation of mutual transverse induction of the electric and magnetic fields of EM energy 180 degrees out of phase.

The sequence is clearly described in the second paper with references to the supporting other papers.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

Yes the Faraday equation is transverse while Coulomb’s law is radial. They are mutually orthogonal aspects of the same 3D cylindrically symmetrical foundation which I take to be a vortex. This of course means that the Coulomb force will always be there, while the Faraday equation will only exist when there is vorticity in the force field. So the Faraday force is transient while the Coulomb force is permanent.

When we started this conversation, you were saying that the Faraday equation is rooted in Gauss’s law while I was saying that they are two different forces. But owing to my first paragraph above, I can see how we were both right. They are indeed two different forces, but the Faraday force could not exist unless the Coulomb force already existed, but not vice-versa. The Coulomb force does not need there to be a Faraday force present too. However, it’s only the transient Faraday force (the transverse force) that is important in EM radiation which is where the speed of light becomes relevant.

It may help you to familiarize yourself with the list of Maxwell’s eight original equations, especially the fourth one. The list, in familiar modern format, is right at the beginning of this article here, Article Maxwell's Original Equations

Dear Frederick,

At the submicroscopic level, the Coulomb force is axially at play between all charged and localized elementary particles whatever distance may be separating them, and is also at play transversely within each such elementary electromagnetic particle between the two charges that cyclically generate the magnetic field of the particle as they oscillate transversely to the direction of motion.

The same Coulomb interaction law as a function of the inverse square of the distance is demonstrably at play both longitudinally (between charged particles) and transversely (within each particle), which is the source of the displacement current that was first proposed by Maxwell himself in 1865 and which was the foundation of his electromagnetic theory.

As for the application of the Faraday equation at the macroscopic level, as I mentioned before, I have no specific opinion since I do not know enough to be able to completely extrapolate and explain the macroscopic electromagnetic behavior of large collections of atoms from my current understanding of the elementary particles level. This is still uncharted territory from this grounding setup in my case. So I leave such considerations to be discussed by you and others more familiar with the macroscopic level.

But one thing I am certain of, there can exist no electric field, either longitudinally or transversely defined without the Coulomb interaction between charges as a function of the inverse square of the distance being involved. Note that my understanding of the submicroscopic level is within a trispatial set up, not in a 3D (4D) spatial setup within which all macroscopic processes have been defined. I just don't know how to reconcile both levels. It is this aspect that I think that J.L. means to address.

Thank you so much for the link to your paper on Maxwell's Original Equations.

Highly interesting and informative and thoroughly well documented. I will save a copy.

Best Regards, André

Hi André, While Coulomb’s law obeys an inverse square law in distance, when applied to a dipole it obeys an inverse cube law. You might be interested in understanding how a rotating dipole can cause the magnetic repulsive force which is the v×B term in Maxwell’s fourth equation of the original eight. Imagine two rotating dipoles side by side, both rotating in the same direction with their mutual rotation axes parallel. If the Coulomb force field lines arise because of tension in an associated velocity field, then above a certain threshold of mutual angular speed, the flow lines between the two dipoles will be cut. Hence when the negative particle of one dipole is at its point of closest approach to the positive particle of the other dipole, the Coulomb force of attraction will not occur between them. Instead, the two dipoles will be pushed apart by the side pressure coming from the flow lines from each dipole as the lines shear past each other side on. This is the inverse cube law centrifugal force v×B which underlies all magnetic repulsion. If space is filled with rotating electron-positron dipoles, then magnetic lines of force will be formed as they align along their mutual rotation axes. There will be an attractive tension along the lines due to the Coulomb force and a repulsion acting sideways from the lines of force due to centrifugal force.

Dear Frederick,

From my understanding, this is not how the Coulomb interaction operates. I think that our views radically diverge in this regard.

The Coulomb force would not really be a "force of attraction or repulsion" as traditionally defined, but would rather be a "force of adiabatic kinetic energy induction" that would adiabatically and continuously induce kinetic energy in elementary charged particles, whether they are moving or not, which would make this force a "yet-to-be-correctly-understood-active-agent" that would be universally ambient in the background, so to speak, and consequently that it would not need to travel at any velocity to simultaneously act on all existing charged particles in the universe, but would only increase or decrease the amounts of this adiabatically induced kinetic energy in an infinitesimally progressive manner whenever charged particles happen to be in distance varying motion with respect to each other.

Ref Chapter "The Coulomb Force" (page 9-11) in this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

As for the inverse cube law, it was experimentally confirmed in 2014 that it is related to the magnetic interaction between elementary particles. Since this magnetic interaction does not induce any energy in the particles, it cannot be related to the Coulomb interaction but is related to the mutual magnetic spin orientation of elementary particles, as confirmed by this experiment by Kotler et al:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

It is precisely the combined properties of the inverse square Coulomb interaction adiabatic energy induction and of the inverse cube magnetic interaction that allow establishing a Maxwell interpretation compliant solution possibly explaining the orbital stability of electrons in atoms, and of the inner charged elementary components of protons and neutrons:

https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

Best Regards, André

Dear André, Yes, all the stability, in both planetary orbits and in electromagnetism, is based on an inverse square law of attraction in conjunction with an inverse cube law of repulsion. Magnetic repulsion will be inverse cube law, but magnetic attraction will be inverse square law. Consider a single magnetic line of force and imagine looking down a cross-section of it through a powerful microscope. I believe you would see a tunnel of rotating dipoles, each with an electron orbiting a positron at the speed of light. Magnetic attraction would therefore be inverse square law based on Coulomb’s law, whereas magnetic repulsion, which act sideways from the field lines (see the attached diagrams) would be due to inverse cube law centrifugal force.

``Real data'' is a meaningless expression by itself. Electric and magnetic fields are, by definition, solutions to Maxwell's equations, which means they are invariant under gauge transformations and covariant under Lorentz transformations. In the presence of boundaries, Lorentz invariance is explicitly broken in known ways.

There isn't any meaning to ``interpretations'' of electrodynamics either-this is, just, another, more fancy word, for ``personal opinion''. It's possible to check that electrodynamics, which is nothing more and nothing less than the phenomena that are described by the solutions of Mxwell's equations, implies certain properties for them and for their sources.

Whether these properties were stated correctly by Maxwell, Lorenz or Lorentz-or not-is part of history. Whether they were right or wrong can be checked without recourse to what they believed.

There's no point trying to relive the history of electrodynamics. In particular there's no point in not having studied a textbook on electrodynamics.

Dear Frederick,

You are so close! Just a matter of interpretation.

You wrote: "Yes, all the stability, in both planetary orbits and in electromagnetism, is based on an inverse square law of attraction in conjunction with an inverse cube law of repulsion".

I absolutely agree.

You wrote: "Magnetic repulsion will be inverse cube law, but magnetic attraction will be inverse square law."

On my part, I would write:

Magnetic repulsion is inverse cube law, and "apparent attraction" due to momentum adiabatic energy induced by the Coulomb interaction vectorially oriented towards the other body, causing both bodies to stabilize at a least action resonance mean distance from each other.

You write: "I believe you would see a tunnel of rotating dipoles, each with an electron orbiting a positron at the speed of light"

In their orbitals, electrons do not need to travel on any orbit. They can simply remain mostly stationary, captive in a least action electromagnetic axial resonance states, as explained in the last part of this paper: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

You need the adiabatic induction of kinetic energy to explain why Bremmsstrahlung photons are emitted each time an electron is captured by an atom or when one de-excites from a metastable orbital and moves to an orbital closer to an atomic nucleus. Also to explain the relativistic mass increase as a function of the diminishing distances between charged particles.

This is explained in this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

You need self-consistent mechanical explanations for all processes.

Best Regards, André

Dear Stam,

I already answered your 2 objections. Why needlessly repeat them?

Negating the issue and bringing too idealized concepts as objections are not worthwile contributions to this discussion. You obviously do not understand the issue at hand.

Best Regards, André

André and Fredrick,

You both have been very busy here. This is a fantastic thread. Thank you for the time spent to share your great insights.

I am in agreement with most everything both of you stated over this last 24 hours, and can verify geometrically that your statements concerning the transverse and/or longitudinal aspects of the Coulomb and Faraday approach to their forces. I also wish to encourage a continuing discussion in this regard. I believe both of you are actually stating a very close (if not the same) phenomena, which will be very difficult without a geometric figure to point to. I will attempt to describe this figure, which will become very clear once viewed in my soon to be released paper.

Part of the above discussion references the possibility that the Coulomb force could be both transverse and longitudinal (radial). This is absolutely true, and can be realized within the geometric dynamic unit within my paper. As I mentioned in my last reply, we can easily get lost here separating the basic charge with all of our invented "forces", be it Coulomb or Faraday. The difficulty here (as we are seeing in our discussion), is now having to combine them back into what the universe actually "is". André has found a path back to the "universe" (if you will) utilizing his tri-spacial approach which separates many of our parameters within 3 systems, and then combines them back to a physical reality. The Coulomb/Faraday force is simply another aspect of this same approach. These forces are and should be considered to be one "electromagnetism" as Maxwell states.

With that said, consider an energetic aether, a perfectly symmetric structurally dynamic and kinematic unit. It exists at such a level of symmetry that it is undetectable to any of our senses or instruments made from matter which is at a lower symmetric state. Matter's inherent character IS observable do to its inherent polarized state, yet at its most foundational level is constructed from the same "stuff" (charge) as the aether. The aether is stable WRT its universal center, yet each stable positioned Plank sized unit is cyclical in nature within itself (enabling a transverse wave phenomena). From the aether's perspective, matter is simply an irritant and therefore the aether attempts to "force" it back into a more symmetric state, its "natural" state if you will. Yet, matter "pushes back" due to its polarized inability to comply (forming the gravity and EM fields). It is here, at this transitional zone between matter and the aether where the semi-observable EM and gravitational "fields" occur within the elastic aether. These fields are both radial and transverse, only due to the radial and transverse dynamic nature of the structural unit. I have the geometric equations of motion defining this wave occurring about 3 coordinate systems, enabling these combined transverse/radial laws of motion which Maxwell, Faraday and Coulomb have so elegantly broken down and described. Now, let us assemble these back together into a UFT.

I'm including this here only as an early encouragement that I believe the above discussion is on the correct path.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

I agree that you, Frederick and myself seem to be very close to a common understanding, each coming from a different direction.

With respect to your flowing current, you might be interested in a mechanical explanation to the rotation direction of the magnetic field, otherwise expressed as the "parallel spin alignment" of the individual electrons all moving in the same direction.

This is described in the following paper, titled "On the Einstein-de Haas and Barnett Effects":

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue12/B06120711.pdf

Best Regards, André

Thank you Andre. A good read.

In the paper you state:

"... the unidirectional half of a photon's energy (whether carrier or free) is unable by structure to orient otherwise than perpendicularly to the local magnetic field made up of the other oscillating half of that photon's energy."

My geometric model verifies the part of this statement mentioning that the photon enters/departs a body centroid perpendicular to that body's magnetic field, and that the carrier photon separates and departs as a dual 1/2 pair. Yet, I am unclear as to what you mean by a magnetic field made up of "The Other Half of that photon's energy". Can you elaborate? I believe the dual character of the carrier photon operates as one at departure initiation, both departing 180deg from one another when the orbit is at perigee, thereby explaining the "spooky action at a distance". The magnetic field flow about a spherical body is equal and opposite at any 180deg interval, thereby enabling the dual pair both to maintain magnetic field perpendicularity exit vectors from the body under consideration.

The photon dual is a 2D entity in my model, and thus has no magnetic field or mass to speak of on its own, and only appears to be "deflected" in space due to the elastic property of the aether it travels through.

One last comment, I am not sure that anyone has yet to solve the 1/2 electron momentum discrepancy in the Einstein-de Haas experiment, but it very well could be due to the inherent torriodal shape of the electron (my model shows), encompassing an internal momenta component folding in about itself which is non orbital.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

This refers to the only internal photon structure possible in the trispatial geometry.

One half is unidirectional momentum energy (by structure) and the other half oscillates transversely between electric state and magnetic state. This is the triple orthogonal electromagnetic relation inherent to Maxwell's theory.

This other half of the kinetic energy of which the whole quantum that makes up the total energy of the photon is also the same sort of energy as the momentum kinetic energy. It is however oriented perpendicularly (by structure) to the direction of motion of the unidirectional momentum energy that propels it and oscillates between being two charges moving spacewise away from each other, that then cyclically merge into a single timewise magnetic state, and back.

The two half quanta are permanently captive of this mutual orthogonal relation, this is why it is impossible for the momentum energy of the electron in the rotating cylinder not to orient as parallel as possible to each other when their related magnetic fields are forced by the external magnetic field to all align in the same antiparallel spin alignment, which causes the cylinder to start rotating.

For the rod, it is the opposite. when the rod is set in motion, it forces their momentum energy to align as parallel to each other as possible to account for their angular motion in the same direction, which forces their related magnetic fields to all align in parallel magnetic spin alignment, which causes then to add up to become measurable at the macroscopic level.

You wrote "The photon dual is a 2D entity in my model, and thus has no magnetic field or mass to speak of on its own, "

This is because the 3D (4D) space geometry gives you no choice in this regard, but remember that in the trispatial geometry, the dual charges move in a 3D space of their own (electrostatic Y-space), perpendicular to normal x-space, and as they switch to magnetic state, they cross over into another 3D space (Z-space) which is perpendicular to the other 2.

Contrary to the limited possibilities of considering only 3D space, this set up allows both electric charges to appear massive as perceived from normal space since the actual energy making them up is physically present in this perpendicular 3D space. The same when this same amount of energy crosses over to magnetostatic 3D Z-space.

To represent this in only one 3D space geometry, there is no choice but to flatten them up, which makes them appear as being on a 2D plane perpendicular to the direction of motion.

You wrote: "One last comment, I am not sure that anyone has yet to solve the 1/2 electron momentum discrepancy in the Einstein-de Haas experiment,"

Right. this has not yet been solved in the community, but in the trispatial set up, given the structure of the carrying energy of all electrons (carrier-photons), it can be observed that only half of the momentum energy that can be calculated with the Coulomb equation is actual unidirectional momentum energy. The other half is the Δm relativistic magnetic mass increment complement, put to light by Marmet, transversely oriented with respect to the related momentum energy, and that does not contribute to motion. This is the explanation: Only half of the energy induced in charged particles by the Coulomb interaction contributes to actual momentum, the other half increases the measurable mass.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

It might be easier to keep the discussion restricted to magnetic field lines in space, as opposed to EM effects inside atomic and molecular matter (ponderable matter). Ponderable matter causes all kinds of additional perturbations that cloud the fundamental issues.

We should begin by considering the magnetic field line patterns surrounding two current carrying wires and then try and ascertain what could be accounting for the pull effect along their length and the push effect that emanates sideways from them.

I this respect, I was only looking at an electron-positron orbit as being the fundamental construction unit within a magnetic field line. There is no need at this stage to be concerned about what is happening inside atoms when EM photons are being emitted and absorbed. That is complicated stuff which goes beyond the basics of electromagnetism.

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "It might be easier to keep the discussion restricted to magnetic field lines in space, as opposed to EM effects inside atomic and molecular matter"

As I mentioned previously, the submicroscopic level where fundamental interactions occur between elementary charged particles is the level that I am familiar with. I have not yet integrated the consequences of all the processes in action at the fundamental level to logically explain all macroscopic processes that are observed. Those that I have addressed are available in one or other of my analyses. The rest remains to be addressed.

I could only contribute guesses at this stage on some of the issues that you raise at the macroscopic level, so I prefer to abstain in their cases.

Best Regards, André

Hi André, What I really meant was, it might be easier to understand the steady state magnetic field in isolation before concerning ourselves with the dynamic state, as in EM radiation and EM induction. As for photons and their interaction with ponderable matter, that is even more specialized.

In 1861, Maxwell dealt with the lines of force first, in Part I of his paper http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

Then in Part II he dealt with EM induction, and in Part III he dealt with EM radiation.

If we first try and understand the mystery of magnetic field lines themselves, the rest will fall out in due course. Maxwell reasoned that they must be a tunnel of vortices aligned along their rotation axes, such as to create a tension along their length while exerting centrifugal pressure laterally. His details were vague but he reasoned that whatever is going on, it must be something like this. If you accept that basic model, then you will fully understand all magnetic force problems. You will understand why the magnetic field lines that surround two parallel current carrying wires pull and push the wires together. The tension along the lines pulls the wires together, while the pressure acting sideways from the lines pushes the wires together.

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "What I really meant was, it might be easier to understand the steady state magnetic field in isolation before concerning ourselves with the dynamic state, as in EM radiation and EM induction."

I absolutely agree. This is why when I decided to get involved in 1998, the first thing I did was precisely to carry out an experiment that would confirm on the lab bench the far fields behavior of spherical macroscopic magnetostatic fields. The details of the experiment were published in 2013, 1 year before the confirming experiments of Kotler et al. already given a reference to. Its title is "On the Magnetostatic Inverse Cube Law and Magnetic Monopoles":

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

I carried out the experiment in repulsion, but Emmanouil Markoulakis very recently carried out a similar experiment in attraction that confirms the far fields behavior for static spherical magnetic fields at the macroscopic level, which is also confirmed for the magnetic field of electrons by the Kotler et a. experiment.

If you analyze in turn the data collected in my own experiment, you will see that it confirms that both poles of the magnetic field can only be present in timewise alternance, which directly confirms Maxwell's interpretation, just like LRC systems do.

This is critically important, because this is what gives the key to understanding the inner electromagnetic structure of all electromagnetic elementary particles.

Since all atoms are made from such particles, seems to me that the properties observed of all macroscopic bodies can only be the outcome of the properties of these ultimate building blocks. Once these properties have been established, the job remains to analyze and understand how these properties of the ultimate building blocks can explain all macroscopic processes.

I only partly addressed these processes, but the fundamental level is about covered from the Maxwell interpretation perspective in my articles, but much work remains to be done from these grounding premises. For what I have not analyzed, I have only guesswork to offer.

Best Regards, André

André and Frederick,

First of all André, your explanation to my last question makes perfect sense to me. Thank you, and your explanation is also reflected within my geometric model which is very exciting. Once you see this model, I believe you will have no problem correlating your tri-spacial approach within it. The 2D photonic structure in my model travels through the aether in the manner you and Marmet both describe, with both a transverse and longitudinal component. This path is dictated by the unique structure of the aether, which is electrodynamic at its heart. As the photon entity departs the electron and enters into an aether unit structure, it disrupts the aether symmetry and therefore the unit simply must pass it through and about (longitudinal and transverse) itself onto the next adjacent unit, until of course the photon meets a "like kind" semi-symmetric entity (electron) which is able to absorb or reflect its semi-symmetric energy. Wavelength is only a function of the diameter (or rather an integer number of Planck sized units) of the aether-unit/photon observed.

Secondly addressing Frederick's comments, I have no problem attempting to meld in micro with the macro observables, for it is in the macro which we are attempting to ultimately describe. I see it as building a bridge from two sides of the river and perhaps meeting in the middle. While attempting to visualize my geometric model, I always had to consider the macro, yet found that attempting to slice it down into the micro proved futile for me personally. It was only when I began visualizing the beginning in the micro world was I able to build UP into a place where I could then USE the macro to verify and adjust my micro path corrections, ultimately discovering the meld between the two.

By the way, exactly 100 years before I was born, Maxwell through his visualization of this phenomena actually came up with a 2D rendition of his "spinning cells" (enclosed) in the micro world which is akin to my geometric 3D model. He called it the “mechanical illustrations to assist the imagination”, a precursor model to his eventual formulation of his EM theory, seeded in some way from Scottish engineering physicist William Rankine's 1842 molecular vortices model precursors.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

You wrote: "As the photon entity departs the electron and enters into an aether unit structure, it disrupts the aether symmetry and therefore the unit simply must pass it through and about (longitudinal and transverse) itself onto the next adjacent unit, until of course the photon meets a "like kind" semi-symmetric entity (electron) which is able to absorb or reflect its semi-symmetric energy. Wavelength is only a function of the diameter (or rather an integer number of Planck sized units) of the aether-unit/photon observed."

You seem to be able to much more clearly visualize than me this aspect of the question. In the conclusion of my last paper in the physics domain, https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067, I mention that, quote:

"Although not providing the progressive mechanical explanation of the transitions between stationary states that de Broglie and Schrödinger were working to resolve, this article proposes an electromagnetic resonance mechanics of elementary electromagnetic particles that, if confirmed, could possibly allow it."

Possibly this issue could be mechanically resolved from your perspective. This is where de Broglie and Schrödinger were at when this line of reasoning almost immediately ceased being investigated, and it is where I am at right now, pending further analysis.

I also have no doubt that the Maxwell compliant trispatial submicroscopic perspective can be harmonized with the directly observable 3D (4D) macroscopic perspective. Your flat 2D transverse electromagnetic photonic structure is already a huge step in this direction. To me this is no stranger than the familiar capture of real 3D scenery being rendered as flattened mages on 2D flat screen displays.

Best Regards, André

J.L. Brady

How does your photon produce the diffraction and interference experiments?

Dear John,

This is precisely what we are hoping to coherently and mechanically explain from the electromagnetic perspective.

Best Regards, André

John,

You asked:

" How does your photon produce the diffraction and interference experiments? "

First off is not a particle (whatever that is). Secondly, it is a 2D element of spin, turning into a spherical hemisphere surface almost immediately after its initiation, transferring its 2D "charge" into adjacent aether units as it expands. These 2D elements therefore have an edge, which react with the slit edges, rotating its original vector direction once contacting it. Not too hard to visualize, but this video (plus Parts II and III) should help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI

- J.L. Brady

Hi André, Did your experiment which demonstrated the inverse cube law in magnetic force involve magnetic repulsion or magnetic attraction?

JL Brady, The diagram that you provided was in Part II of Maxwell's 1861 paper and it was used to help him explain the formation of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire.

But in Part I, he dealt with the actual magnetic field itself. Do you accept that a magnetic field line needs to have a tension along its length and a pressure acting at right angles to it? And if so, do you accept the principles behind Maxwell's explanation for why this is so? The main principle is that the lateral pressure is due to centrifugal force and that therefore magnetic repulsion between two north pole magnets is in effect centrifugal force. Does this help you to establish the physical nature of the medium for the propagation of light?

J.L. Brady

I see plasma. But these won't produce the fringes (areas of no energy) when they move thru a slit. How do the move. Videos 2 and 3 ?

J.L. Brady

The STOE suggests each individual matter part is a magnet not a charge. A combination of these forms a photon. Combinations of photons form electrons, etc. I thought you might be headed in this direction (a magnet is the base unit not a charge).

Dear Frederick,

As already mentioned, mine was in repulsion, but Emmanouil's was in attraction with the same type of magnetostatic fields.

Best Regards, André

J.L. Brady

Finally watch the 3rd "primer" video.

Not see how it works into a wave. Note the part on the single photon thru the double slit. It goes thru axially? I don't understand what is flowing around the circuit. But different parts go thru at a time (not get the slit in phase required).

However, if the doubledonut axis is perpendicular to the direction, the necessary slip is there.

Dear André, I’d be very surprised if magnetic attraction could be shown to be inverse cube law, but it would be very hard to measure owing to the solenoidal nature of the field lines. The field lines that connect two unlike poles break when they are moved apart a short distance.

Dear Frederick,

Surprising or not changes nothing to the fact that Emmanouil collected data that confirms the inverse cube law. He carried it out precisely because he initially believed that in attraction the relation was inverse square.

On the other hand, it would be illogical if anti-parallel magnetic spin alignment obeyed an interaction law different than when in parallel magnetic spin alignment.

From my perspective, experimental data supersedes any theoretical hypothesis that may be in contradiction.

If you don't believe that the experiments were really carried out with these results, you can easily repeat them yourself as Emmanouil did and check for yourself. Within anybody's reach to carry out with simple loudspeaker magnets.

Best Regards, André

Hi André, Well I suppose it’s possible, because the inverse cube law is the trademark of a dipole field, and I have been trying to demonstrate how a single magnetic line of force is comprised of a tunnel of tiny rotating electron-positron dipoles aligned along their mutual rotation axes. This of course means that magnetic attraction is due to a specific alignment that channels the Coulomb force through an electrically neutral medium, but of course it doesn’t automatically follow that the composite effect is inverse square law too.

I was always more certain about the repulsive case because it is generated laterally from the magnetic field lines due to centrifugal force, which we already know is inverse cube law. See the attached pictures to remind yourself of the field line patterns in each case.

Hi John, The rotating electron-positron dipole is the primary unit of magnetism and it contains two oppositely charged particles. See this article which lists the various manifestations of an electron-positron dipole,

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/216

Dear Frederick,

I agree that verifying the inverse cube law of magnetic interaction is much easier in repulsion, which lacking the appropriate measuring equipment to do the experiment in attraction, was the only option open to me. But as for attraction, I think that the only way you could really come to a definite conclusion would be either carefully study Emmanouil's set up and analyze yourself his results, or carry the experiment out yourself.

He and others have also been experimenting with a novel way of mapping magnetic fields by means of light, a technique named the ferrolens.

https://www.mdpi.com/2410-3896/4/2/35/htm

Best Regards, André

Hi André, Anyway, getting back to your original question, I think the answer is not so much that the Lorenz interpretation prevailed over Maxwell's as that the Lorentz-Einstein interpretation did, and that just happened to absorb the Lorenz interpretation. The Lorenz gauge came about in 1868 long before Lorentz. And I notice that Heaviside embraced the Lorenz gauge. But I have no idea if it would have prevailed had physics not been derailed by the Lorentz-Einstein revolution which took on board every folly of the times.

Dear Frederick,

The problem with the Lorenz interpretation is that it is not possible to define any form of self-sustaining localized electromagnetic photon from this interpretation, whereas the Maxwell interpretation easily allows it besides allowing to reconcile QM with electromagnetism, which cannot be done from the Lorenz interpretation. More over, it allows defining the inner structure of all elementary charged particles in a coherent manner, as described in the text following the question .

This was the reason that J.L. and I thought this was a good idea to set up this discussion and see what info or leads could then come to light from people in the know.

Best Regards, André

Hi André, I'll have to take your word for it. Although I passed a third year Quantum Mechanics course at university back in the early 1980s, I was never able to relate it to reality. I was only ever interested in classical mechanics and hydrodynamics. When it comes to pulses of EM radiation interacting with atoms, I just picture the Bohr model and assume that some multi-particle interaction is occurring under planetary orbital rules.

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "Although I passed a third year Quantum Mechanics course at university back in the early 1980s, I was never able to relate it to reality."

You then lived the same experience as everybody else, me included.

From the moment that the Copenhagen school of thought took over the whole field in 1927, only the statistical Heisenberg method was used to deal with Quantum mechanics. This is just abstract mathematics, very hard to relate to physical reality. Then came Feynman with the path integral concept, which is closer to first level math, which is a little easier to connect to physical reality.

But the real purpose of the original QM equation, that is, Schrödinger's equation, which is closest to first level math, has never been mentioned in any textbook due to the universal adoption of the Heisenberg method only a few years after Schrödinger came up with his resonance equation.

I guarantee you that if you read even only the first few pages of my last paper, published last year, you will clearly understand how QM is related to reality:

https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

You wrote: " I was only ever interested in classical mechanics and hydrodynamics. When it comes to pulses of EM radiation interacting with atoms, I just picture the Bohr model and assume that some multi-particle interaction is occurring under planetary orbital rules."

You then followed the exact same route as me. But then, I started to connect Maxwell's electromagnetism to the Bohr model via reading what de Broglie explained on these issues. Unfortunately all of this material never was translated to English, so only a few people in the community have had access to it.

If you go on reading my paper further than the first few pages that explain what QM really is, you will have a glimpse of what de Broglie understood.

Best Regards, André

André & Frederick,

After reading Frederick's last reply, I was going to reply, but found that I would have replied almost in the exact same manner as André did... and found myself lol.

So yes, I have found that the universal structural geometry which was revealed to me actually can actually describe the workings of the universe using classical mechanics when applied to the "charge" and integers. Before this revelation, it seemed obvious to me personally that if our macro observations could be solved classically, then the macro must then also have this same characteristic at its core, however small (Planck length). As I researched like-minded historic greats, I had independently found that Maxwell too had this same approach prior to the establishment of his equations, which helped me visualize reality.

Today, I have not yet located anyone who comes even close to the understanding which André possesses concerning the Maxwell-Lorentz-Lorenz differences in approach. An understanding much greater than mine, and based upon which I believe to be the result of many years of personal study, becoming very obvious in his well written publications. With this said, I believe we are standing at the precipice of attaining and verifying this classically defined understanding of the universe. Many like-minded researchers seem to be entering into the same room today from several doors.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

What can I say but thank you for the appreciation.

But it seems to me that my having a clear awareness of the differences between the Lorenz and Maxwell interpretations is more a matter of chance than anything else.

Having been raised a French speaker in North America (I am a French-Canadian), my deep interest for physics, and particularly for electromagnetism, came about long before I learned English. It so happens that when I was young, I had immediate access to the bulk of French literature including particularly of the work of French scientific discoverers by means of a collection of inexpensive college level popularization works written by the scientists themselves instead of by professional popularizers, that has no match in English speaking countries. That is, the "Que sais-je?" series from "Les Presses Universitaires de France", with in excess now of 4000 books on all aspects of sciences, then available in all libraries and bookstores in the province of Quebec, but becoming less popular now, unfortunately.

I soon learned about de Broglie's contribution. I then got hold of some of his most popular works from other editors and became familiar with Maxwell's interpretation long before I could even begin to read English scientific works, also readily and immediately available to me in Canada, that I then found all grounded on the Lorenz interpretation, at first unfamiliar, and that seemed in contradiction. It took me a while before I understood that de Broglie's work had never been translated to English, and that most English speakers had been trained from the Lorenz perspective, and did not understand the difference between both interpretations.

Since most research is now done and formally published in English, few even know about what de Broglie understood and of the Maxwell interpretation. I learned recently that the bulk of de Broglie's work has now been made available in Russian, but still no trace of any project to translate it to English.

My own contribution seems to be the first inroad into making his work better known in English in a long time. From the de Broglie's perspective, it is easy to understand the importance of Marmet's contribution on the magnetic field of the moving electron, even though it makes no sense from the Lorentz perspective.

I fully agree with you when you write: " With this said, I believe we are standing at the edge of attaining and verifying this classically defined understanding of the universe. Many like-minded researchers seem to be entering into the same room today from several doors."

Best Regards, André

André,

After reading through your "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States" paper again, I have a question for you, which I hope any other interested parties might also wish to answer.

The question:

What exactly, in your personal visualization or perspective actually defines or creates what we have termed to be "mass"?

And yes, we have further subdivided this mass term now into "invariant" mass, and in your paper a "magnetic" induced mass, and perhaps a Coulomb or rather, an "electric" induced type of mass, yet all maintaining a mass aspect.

It has been well established that mass is simply energy, and so a bit confusing especially when we consider the definition of invariant mass, which tends to point to stability. For is not all energy primarily potential or kinetic? And if so, must they not follow Maxwell's approach to cyclic variance. Perhaps a so called invariant could be considered as an average value per stable cycle.

I will give my answer here, only to spur discussion in this "matter":

I believe mass appears in this universe only due to its lower state of "charge" symmetry as compared to the higher symmetric "charge" state of the aether. The E and B fields are simply disruptions of the aether held within the transitional realms between a "mass" centroid and the undisturbed aether existing at an inverse square distance away. The short answer: Mass is simply an indication of a localized fallen symmetric state of the universe, emanating from centroidal points.

If this is true, then perhaps the interpretation that an "invariant" mass exists may not be a valid assumption. Believing this "invariant" points to a perspective that mass is the center of the universe, much like the old belief that the Earth was once at the center. In my paper, I make a simple statement that the aether is the natural state of the universe due to its higher single cycle symmetry as opposed to matter's 12 cycle symmetric state. These symmetric states are demonstrated simply utilizing "charge" and integers held within a mechanical kinematic geometric structure. Could it be that the mass/2 = 13.6eV value is one of potential + one of kinetic energy, made up of the E and B components alone?

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

You ask: "What exactly, in your personal visualization or perspective actually defines or creates what we have termed to be "mass"?"

A little difficult to describe to be understandable in the frame of 3D (4D) space. In short, mass can only be made of "kinetic energy". It is kinetic energy that self-sustains in standing localized oscillation "transversely" with respect to 3D normal space as it circulates at its frequency across a "centroidal point" (I like the name you gave it, which on my side I name a "point-like trispatial junction") between a twin-component electric state (within electrostatic Y-space) and a single component magnetic state (within magnetostatic Z-space).

Since this oscillation across the centroidal point is transverse with respect to normal X-space, it displays omnidirectional resistance to any interaction tending to change its state of motion, which is the traditional definition of "mass". It is the "centroidal point" which has physical presence in normal X-space, which is what explains the point-like behavior of elementary particles in normal space.

You write: "And yes, we have further subdivided this mass term now into "invariant" mass, and in your paper a "magnetic" induced mass, and perhaps a Coulomb or rather, an "electric" induced type of mass, yet all maintaining a mass aspect."

I distinguish two types of mass.

a)- The invariant rest mass of stabilized elementary particles, such as that of the electron, whose energy oscillates transversely through its centroidal point, with respect to electric Y-space (which contains its invariant momentum energy, corresponding to the intensity of its charge), between a twin-component neutrinic state (within normal X-space) and a single magnetic component state (within magnetostatic Z-space).

b)- The variable mass increment provided by its carrying energy, also made of the same sort of kinetic energy that self-sustains in standing localized oscillation "transversely" with respect to 3D normal space as it circulates at its frequency across its own separate "centroidal point", between a twin-component electric state (within electrostatic Y-space) and a single component magnetic state (within magnetostatic Z-space).

Since elementary particles with invariant rest masses a)- are charged, they always are accompanied by a "carrying amount" of Coulomb induced energy, corresponding to an occurrence of b).

So, in reality, even if the mass of the particle itself is invariant, the addition of one a) plus one b) is variable due to the variability of b) depending on its total amount (that varies with velocity and/or with proximity with other charged particles).

You wrote: "For is not all energy primarily potential or kinetic?"

Emphatically NO. This is the traditional incomplete view that prevents understanding that "kinetic energy" physically exists, that it has "permanent physical presence". Kinetic energy DOES NOT oscillate between some hypothetical "potential" absence of existence and really existing "kinetic energy", but it transversely oscillates (if not in unidirectional momentum state) between a physically existing electric state and a physically existing magnetic state. The same amount of energy alternately maxes as a twin-component electric state and single component magnetic state through the centroidal point of the quantum.

This is how Maxwell's approach to cyclic variance between E and B fields states pans out in the trispatial geometry.

In this geometry, E and B of a photon or of a carrier-photon are only mathematical representations, the really physically existing stuff is only physically existing "kinetic energy" captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation perpendicularly to an equal amount of unidirectional kinetic energy that corresponds to its momentum, in electrostatic Y-space for the invariant mass of the electron, and in normal X-space for its carrying energy.

Note that there is no need for the concept of ether in the trispatial approach, because each localized elementary particle individually "self-propels" by means of its unidirectional momentum component.

I like very much your last sentence: " Could it be that the mass/2 = 13.6eV value is one of potential + one of kinetic energy, made up of the E and B components alone?"

If you amended it as follows, it would be a direct description of either a free-moving electromagnetic photon or of the carrier-photon (defined as b) above) of an elementary charged particles such as the electron in the trispatial geometry:

"Could it be that the carrying-energy/2 = 13.6eV value is one of unidirectional momentum kinetic energy + one of transverse kinetic energy, the latter alternating between an E and a B state"

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Where does gravitation energy/mass as distinct form Kinetic /inertial mass?

What a great question André Michaud . I hadn't really looked to compare the two, but I'd have to air on the Maxwellian take. My own work on modelling interplanetary fields and emergence of gravity through distortions of a 'super fluid vacuum' lead me to believe that the inverse field has to be present. Modelling planetary motion using what I see now is "a Maxwellian construct" you can satisfy both: "Consistent with the invariant speed of light in vacuum." as well as "a consistent with self-sustaining and self-propelling of localized transversely oscillating energy quanta". Heres a link to a YT video of a year in the solar system modelled using the above.. Look familiar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQJEgSlaeB . Best regards, Scot!

Hi John,

From the trispatial perspective, "gravitation energy/mass" is directly synonymous with "kinetic/inertial/mass".

Deep analysis seems to show that at the fundamental level, only "physically existing" kinetic energy is present (I mean existing as a physical "substance", whatever it may be), and that, as I mention at the end of Section "Photons, Electrons, Positrons, Exclusively made of Kinetic Energy" starting page 4 of the following paper, the fundamental question that comes up is then:

"How can a quantity of kinetic energy, accumulating due to Coulomb force freefall acceleration of a massive particle (an electron for example) as the latter unidirectionally increases its velocity in space to start with, dynamically "fold" onto itself according to the threefold orthogonal relation revealed by Maxwell's theory, to become a stable quantum of electromagnetic energy escaping at the speed of light (a photon), while being animated with the local multidirectional oscillating motion suggested by de Broglie's hypothesis; a quantum whose energy would consist in a space-wise electric dipole cyclically morphing into a time-wise magnetic dipole, and that could also explain all electromagnetic properties of photons without changing in nature?"

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Further analyzing then led to the Maxwell compliant trispatial equations for the photon, both LC and E-B Fields, then to those of the electron and positron rest masses and of their carrier-photons, and then to those of the inner components of protons and neutrons, all presented and summarized in my last paper, on the Hydrogen Atom Fundamental States, with references to the previous papers that analyze each aspect in detail.

Best Regards, André

Dear Scot,

Glad that this Maxwell versus Lorenz interpretations issue raises your interest. We really think that it should be brought to general attention.

Yes, the inverse field definitely needs to be taken account of and might be considered to be present in idealized models, for purpose of clear visualization of the interactions.

The question is: Is it required to physically exist to explain the physical interactions that can be observed?

Alternately, maybe, it can also be suspected that magnetic energy is all over the place. Let us consider that the magnetic field of the Sun reaches to the very edges of the Oort cloud.

Unfortunately, the link to the little video leads to a "Video not available" screen.

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud my apologies I copied the link only partially https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQJEgSlaeBs&t=7s .. this a 2 sided model.

I think it 'must exist'. From my own calculation it exists due to the emergence or ultimately unavoidable presence of boundary conditions at the far edge of any orbitally locked system ... atom or planetary. "Let us consider that the magnetic field of the Sun reaches to the very edges of the Oort cloud." Absolutely ..the displacement of vacuum by the central mass (Sun) reaches much further I think than Newtonian figures would imply. In the models here incidentally, we model the entire solar system field "upon" the gradient of its slightly larger galactic parent!

From a quantum perspective the field is inversely mirrored (think anti planet) ... Classically it is 1 sided (1 sided video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCzqasZC2s). For what it is worth, I personally think this the true mechanism by how tidal forces such as our own oceanic tides etc function. That isn't to say its new physics.. I think its just the physics that explains the current models fundamental operation.

In the inverse field worldview, conservation of energy is a rudimentary consequence of vacuum density absorbing mass displacement, and gravity is a fundamentally emergent force across the field.

Attached is a very simplified world view for the development of reflected fields in virtual boundaries. It was prepared for a non scientist friend so hope it doesn't offend :-)

Best Scot

Dear Scot,

Interesting video indeed.

Note that on my part I directly investigated only what I saw as the fundamental level interactions between elementary charged particles at the submicroscopic level, and the electromagnetic properties that these elementary particles must have to explain these interactions from the triple orthogonal electromagnetic relation perspective.

I have not directly analyzed all macroscopic processes, so I have drawn no specific conclusions grounded on this foundation about many observed macroscopic processes.

For example, I can relate to some "existing" vacuum "field" at the macroscopic level only in relation with the magnetic fields of astronomical bodies, made up of the addition of the magnetic fields of elementary particles of which they are made, although I have not explored on my side what this would imply.

By the way, your videos sort of reminds me precisely of how I would imagine that magnetic fields of celestial bodies could interact at the macroscopic level.

Best Regards, André

Scot, welcome to the thread.

André,

You stated: "a) The invariant rest mass of stabilized elementary particles, such as that of the electron, whose energy oscillates transversely through its centroidal point..."

If I might for a moment attempt to re-state this another way, to verify that I understand:

From your complete "a)" statement definition of invariant mass, you declare that it consists of 3 parts, one part from each of your tri-spacial coordinate systems. These consist of 1) A transverse electric oscillation energy (coulomb type potential energy), 2) a twin-component neutrinic state (unknown by me), and 3) a single magnetic component state (kinetic type energy).

Then, in addition to this invariant mass, a variant type mass is described from "b)" which as I re-read it, appears to be fairly identical to the description in "a)", only in that it is connected with a variable aspect of mass, associated with, or perhaps above its "carrying" energy.

From a) and b), it appears that there is still only an "electric" (potential) aspect and a "magnetic" (kinetic) aspect, assuming we drop any chargless neutrino contribution (which I do not understand at this time). Once we now bring together the trispacial geometry back into 3D, these two fundamental electric and magnetic foundations still must remain. With this said, I would like to attempt a thought experiment in 3D (4D) space...

What if there existed a charged 3D dynamic entity positioned symmetrically about a centroidal point which could oscillate an electric potential charged surface at the same time it oscillates THE SAME charged surface in a magnetic kinetic manner, always remaining orthogonal to the electric? Would this not satisfy Maxwell's equations, given that these two aspects of the charged surface remain 90deg out of phase dynamically?

I have such an entity, maintaining both particle and anti-particle symmetry.

Would this simplify in any way the description of mass? If so, how would you now state it? Using this entity, could a 3D explanation now be attempted utilizing simple potential and kinetic energies?

Also, you stated:

"Emphatically NO. This is the traditional incomplete view that prevents understanding that "kinetic energy" physically exists, that it has "permanent physical presence". Kinetic energy DOES NOT oscillate between some hypothetical "potential" absence of existence and really existing "kinetic energy", but it transversely oscillates (if not in unidirectional momentum state) between a physically existing electric state and a physically existing magnetic state. The same amount of energy alternately maxes as a twin-component electric state and single component magnetic state through the centroidal point of the quantum."

I agree with you that there is a kinetic energy AND potential physical existence all around us at all times, yet this does not negate my earlier statement of "For is not all energy primarily potential or kinetic?" Side statement: I describe a twin-component electric state entity as you describe, but this entity also includes a twin-state magnetic one as well, maintaining symmetry.

10,000 foot statement:

It is both particle and anti-particle playing tag between the storehouse of these two energies, with symmetry the culprit dictating the rules of the game, which is also true within the realm of the aether.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

You wrote: "From your complete "a)" statement definition of invariant mass, you declare that it consists of 3 parts, one part from each of your tri-spacial coordinate systems. These consist of 1) A transverse electric oscillation energy (coulomb type potential energy), 2) a twin-component neutrinic state (unknown by me), and 3) a single magnetic component state (kinetic type energy)."

Almost.

I say that in the trispatial geometry, my a) statement defines the invariant mass of the electron as it being made of 2 parts. 1) made of half the energy making up the measurable mass of the electron, in static transverse orientation within electrostatic Y-space (perpendicular to normal X-space). The pressure that it unidirectionally exerts against the centroidal point corresponds to the intensity of the invariant electric charge of the electron. and 2) the other half of the energy making up the measurable mass of the electron, travelling cyclically between normal X-space and magnetic Z-space through the centroidal point.

This second half of the electron invariant rest mass energy oscillates between becoming 2 separate neutrinic components as it enters and leaves X-space as it becomes a single magnetic component as it enters Z-space and then leaves it again as it cyclically returns to X-space.

The "neutrinic" twin-components concept is described in this separate paper, titled "The Mechanics of Neutrinos Creation in the 3-Spaces Model". It is identical to the electric twin-component of "b)", except that instead of cyclically developing in electrostatic Y-space, it cyclically develops in normal X-space". I gave them the name "neutrinic charges" because of the role that they play in releasing neutrinos when the electron is in excited muon or tau metastable states in the trispatial geometry:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue7/A07070108.pdf

You wrote: "Then, in addition to this invariant mass, a variant type mass is described from "b)" which as I re-read it, appears to be fairly identical to the description in "a)", only in that it is connected with a variable aspect of mass, associated with, or perhaps above its "carrying" energy."

You are right, it is practically identical to the description in "a)". In fact its trispatial structure is "identical" to that of "a)". The only difference is that it is rotated 90 degrees with respect to "a)".

The half-quantum which is located in Y-space in "a)", is located in X-space for "b)". it is the actual traditional momentum energy that can be calculated with K=γmov2/2. the other half-quantum that oscillates between X-space and Z-space in "a)", oscillates between Y-space and Z-space in "b)".

"b)" describes either a free moving electromagnetic photon or the carrying energy (or "carrier-photon") of an electron or positron. Figure 5 (page 1079) in the paper on the Hydrogen Fundamental resonance states directly describes it, as well as equations (13), equation (46), equation (48) and equation (49). these 4 equations are various descriptions of either a free moving electromagnetic photon or of the carrier-photon of an elementary charged particle in the trispatial geometry.

Equation (13) is the corresponding classical/relativistic version while the other 3 are equivalent electromagnetic representations.

You wrote: "From a) and b), it appears that there is still only an "electric" (potential) aspect and a "magnetic" (kinetic) aspect, assuming we drop any chargless neutrino contribution (which I do not understand at this time). Once we now bring together the trispacial geometry back into 3D, these two fundamental electric and magnetic foundations still must remain. With this said, I would like to attempt a thought experiment in 3D (4D) space..."

Yes. From "a)" plus "b)", there is still the detectable invariant electric charge of the electron statically residing in Y-space, undetectable neutrinic twin components (because they move unidirectionally perpendicularly to the direction of motion in X-space), but their energy becomes detectable as it cyclically moves to Z-space; Undetectable electric twin-charges of "b)" because they also move unidirectionally perpendicularly to the direction of motion in X-space), but their energy also becomes detectable as it cyclically moves to Z-space.

The energy present in Z-space is the magnetic energy that we detect. It cyclically contains the sum of the invariant magnetic energy of "a)" and of the variable magnetic energy of "b)". This sum of "variable"energy in Z-space plus the electric energy in Y-space make up the "variable" transversely measurable mass of the electron in motion at any velocity. ("variable" because the contribution of "b)" in Z-space varies with velocity).

The energy present in Z-space is what Marmet calculated from the Biot-Savart equation (The varying magnetic field of the moving electron).

This relativistic velocity can be calculated with equation (37) in this other paper titled "From Classical to Relativistic Velocity via Maxwell":

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

Table 1 (page 1082) describes the distributions of all components of the energy of a moving electron in the trispatial geometry.

To represent this in 3D space, we need to flatten Y-space and Z-space to become a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion in normal space of a moving charge, which direction traditionally corresponds to the x-axis of an xyz orthogonal coordinate system (see Figure 4 on page 1076).

The case of "b)" is easy to represent in this manner because the momentum energy (half of the quantum) is now unidirectionally parallel to the x axis, and the other oscillating half quantum now becomes two-dimensional and oscillates on the yz plane,

See Figure 10 in this other paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

The case of "a)" is much more difficult to visualize in a 3D configuration, because its "momentum" half-quantum (now electric charge intensity) is now parallel to the y axis, and the oscillating other half quantum oscillates 2-dimentionnally on the xz plane. This difficulty of representation in 3D of the electromagnetic version of the invariant mass of the electron, which is rotated 90 degrees with respect to the inner structure of its carrying energy is why I prefer to think of it within the trispatial geometry, where I can more easily see its structure.

You write: "What if there existed a charged 3D dynamic entity positioned symmetrically about a centroidal point which could oscillate an electric potential charged surface at the same time it oscillates THE SAME charged surface in a magnetic kinetic manner, always remaining orthogonal to the electric? Would this not satisfy Maxwell's equations, given that these two aspects of the charged surface remain 90deg out of phase dynamically?"

In my view, as long as you keep the magnetic and electric aspects perpendicular to each other, oscillating transversely to the direction of motion of the particle, this will satisfy Maxwell's equations. The triple orthogonal relation is the true foundation of Maxwell's solution and of the trispatial model. The trispatial geometry is basically just exploding the 3 standard xyz orthogonal vectors into full blown 3D spaces of their own, having a centroidal point joining them at address 0,0,0 in the middle of every elementary charged particle and electromagnetic photon (or carrier-photon).

I have no doubt that you could represent this in 3D (4D) space geometry along the lines that you are exploring, and that this would be an easier representation to deal with. To me, this simply amounts to representing on a flat TV-screen the 3D image of some real 3D object, We get the idea of what the object represented is anyway.

In the present case, i think that representing trispatial objects as 3D representations should do the job as well.

With respect to "potential energy", this concept is not required in this model, because the kinetic energy does not cease to exist as it oscillates. It simply varies adiabatically with varying distances between charged particles, or velocity, for the "b)" carrier-photons, while remaining constant for the "a)" invariant rest masses. The case of conservation of energy for all systems stabilized in least action is analyzed in this separate paper titled "On Adiabatic Processes at the Elementary Particle Level":

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

From my perspective, ALL existing energy is only "physically existing kinetic energy" (meaning physically existing as a real "substance").

Best Regards, André

André,

Thank you for your continued explanations of you tri-spatial geometry. You mentioned several aspects which I was unaware of. I will review this again and your links. Thanks again.

i was glad to see the neutrino as part of your model, as it is an integral EM player in mine as well. They do possess (or are made up of) charge, yet due to their symmetric makeup will remain close to as observable as dark energy. I do not believe there are any others at this time who have made this connection, do you?

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

You wrote: "I was glad to see the neutrino as part of your model, as it is an integral EM player in mine as well. They do possess (or are made up of) charge, yet due to their symmetric makeup will remain close to as observable as dark energy. I do not believe there are any others at this time who have made this connection, do you?"

Your model also having the neutrino being an integral mechanical part of your model goes to show again how our two idealized models are close and complementary, mine from the trispatial perspective and yours from the 3D (4D) perspective. I also never came across either any text that would show that somebody else has ever made this connection.

Reading my paper on the neutrinos should make clear to you why the twin neutrinic charges proper cannot be directly observed, just like the twin electric charges of free moving photons, from the trispatial perspective.

This relates to the meaning of an aspect of a discovery by Walter Kaufman at the beginning of the 20th century, that went unnoticed, even by himself. At least, I never saw this mentioned anywhere.

It is the fact that the measured momentum energy (half of the carrying energy of elementary particles) of the electrons that he observed moving at relativistic velocities is revealed to be impervious to transverse interaction, as can be seen from the fact that the amount of longitudinal energy which is induced in these electrons in excess of their rest mass energy can be measured longitudinally, but only half of it can be measured transversely when their trajectories are deflected, which can only be the velocity related magnetic mass increment that Marmet identified from first principles in 2003, so the half that cannot be detected and measured transversely can only the longitudinal momentum energy of the electron at this velocity.

This is analyzed in Section "The deflection angle of photons' trajectories" (starting page 14) in the paper on the de Broglie double-particle photon hypothesis:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards, André

News flash:

I believe I just verified the unique dual-set photon entity E and B fields, and how they ingress/egress the electron. It is an unexpected entity, having not only orthogonal E and B fields 90deg out-of-phase, but actually two sets of these 90deg out-of-phase fields, with each set orthogonal to the other. One set Transverse, and one set Longitudinal. Not to say that along a different coordinate system, it could appear to be transverse only (unverified), or perhaps the longitudinal component canceling out when combining with other aspects of the model (also unverified).

At first I couldn't understand why the E field of set 2 wasn't perpendicular to the set 1 B field, thinking that all B or E field combinations should line up within their same plane (assuming light was only transverse), until I realized that both wave types actually might be able to define the photon, and therefore perhaps showing a greater similarity to the electron. I believe I remember that the longitudinal wave is considered a great possibility for the virtual photon having to do with electromagnetic interactions, and therefore very close to the subject matter at hand in this thread.

Some questions:

• Has a possible "longitudinal" aspect of the photon not been considered since the aether lost its foothold within the scientific community?
• What proofs would point to the impossibility of a longitudinal photon aspect?
• Would a longitudinal aspect help describe other observables still not successfully addressed concerning the photon?
• Has not the electron beam been experimentally characterized to include both transverse and longitudinal properties?

I have found this paper considering a longitudinal photon: Article Effects of Longitudinal Photons

...which includes this statement: "In this article we have studied one further complication, namely the poorly-known structure of the resolved longitudinal photon." This is where my findings might come in handy.

Just curious, would this discovery mean anything significant to anyone's research?

Comments?

- J.L. Brady

Dear Dr. Brady, EM waves are transverse. But there is an associated longitudinal radiation pressure,at a deeper level, but this can be shown to be a flow and not a wave. See, Article An Interpretation of Faraday's Lines of Force

Dear J.L.,

You wrote: "I believe I just verified the unique dual-set photon entity E and B fields, and how they ingress/egress the electron. It is an unexpected entity, having not only orthogonal E and B fields 90deg out-of-phase, but actually two sets of these 90deg out-of-phase fields, with each set orthogonal to the other"

Yes. In the trispatial geometry the two sets of E and B fields can exist without interfering with each other. The E component of the electron is unidirectional, parallel to the Y-x axis within electrostatic Y-space while the electric twin-components of its carrier-photon oscillate in opposite direction on the plane Y-y/Y-z, which is perpendicular to the Y-x axis within Y-space. Being perpendicular to each other, they don't interfere with each other, due to the imperviousness to their mutual transverse interaction (their mutual 90 degrees different motion orientation, mentioned in my previous answer).

Within Z-space, their separately oscillating magnetic fields constantly tend toward their maximum possible least action mutual antiparallel magnetic spin relation, which maximum would be reached if the electron carrier-photon reached 0.511 MeV, in which case its magnetic fields would be equal to that of the rest mass of the electron, and both would synchronously oscillate inverse of each other, one cyclically spherically increasing in Z-space while the other cyclically decreases at the same frequency. Unequal energies leading to the Zitterbewegung uneven beat described in section 18. of the paper on the Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States.

I couldn't access the paper you referred about a longitudinal photon (only the abstract was available).

But I will post what comments came to mind regarding the 4 questions that you pose:

1) "Has a possible "longitudinal" aspect of the photon not been considered since the aether lost its foothold within the scientific community?"

I have often read descriptions assuming that the longitudinal component of a photon would be the actual length of its wavelength, which would mean that for such a photon to be absorbed, the time required would be the time for all of it to run the distance required for one cycle to complete. I think that this is not consistent with the known fact (to my knowledge at least) that all of a photon's energy is absorbed in a single instant in time.

2) "What proofs would point to the impossibility of a longitudinal photon aspect?"

Precisely experiments that seem to show that all of a photon's energy is absorbed in a single moment, that I think I read about. I don't remember where.

3) "Would a longitudinal aspect help describe other observables still not successfully addressed concerning the photon?"

Maybe, but not that I can think of. Uncharted territory, in my view. But the de Broglie double-particle photon seems to already address all possible cases. It even provides the first ever coherent mechanics of conversion of a photon of 1.022 MeV into a pair of massive electron-positron:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

4) "Has not the electron beam been experimentally characterized to include both transverse and longitudinal properties?"

I have no clear opinion on this one, since this concerns not individual electrons, but mutual interactions of crowds of electrons moving in the same direction as a bundle, or as a continuous flow, such as in high energy accelerators. What comes to my mind is constant transverse mutual interaction causing the electron in the moving beam constantly oscillating transversely, thus generating Bremmsstrahlung synchrotron radiation.

Best Regards, André

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "EM waves are transverse. But there is an associated longitudinal radiation pressure,at a deeper level,"

I agree with this. For self-propelling de Broglie photons, it would be the sum of the longitudinal unidirectionally moving momentum half of the photon's energy plus the transversely oscillating energy of the other half arriving at the speed of light that would provide this "inertial pressure".

Best Regards, André

Dear André, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the pre-WW2 position on the nature of light waves. In the 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on ‘Ether’ there is a section which discusses its structure in relation to the speed of light It says, “POSSIBLE STRUCTURE.__ The question arises as to what that velocity can be due to. The most probable surmise or guess at present is that the ether is a perfectly incompressible continuous fluid, in a state of fine-grained vortex motion, circulating with that same enormous speed. For it has been partly, though as yet incompletely, shown that such a vortex fluid would transmit waves of the same general nature as light waves _i.e., periodic disturbances across the line of propagation_ and would transmit them at a rate of the order of magnitude as the vortexor circulation speed"

So based on this, it's a longitudinal flow, but there is also wave behaviour on a different level in the form of an oscillating angular momentum at right angles to the direction of propagation. It's therefore plane polarizable.

Dear Frederick,

This is the same classical definition, give or take a few words, that has been known for centuries as the only possible way that a pulse of energy can be transmitted by transverse oscillation of a longitudinally unmoving medium, such as along an elastic cord or within the mass of any rigid substance. Look for the definition of shear waves in the Earth crust (s-waves).

The same propagation mechanics has always been assumed for electromagnetic energy in vacuum even though this would imply that it be made of a rigid substance (allowing a recall constant) that can move transversely, but cannot move longitudinally as the "wave" propagates.

Until recently, this was the only existing concept that was deemed could possibly account for any type of transverse oscillation.

The problem with this concept, is that this does not allow "energy" to be understood as "physically existing" but to only be "momentum" being transmitted by some underlying longitudinally unmoving "substance", that was given the name "eather" in the case of electromagnetic energy. No other concept was ever considered possible to this day to sustain transverse oscillation.

But if "energy" physically exists as a real "substance", no such underlying hypothetical (and to this day undetected) substance is required to account for its forward motion or its transverse oscillation, since localized quanta of such a "physically existing energy substance" can be shown to be internally structurable in such a way as to logically explain how it can move at the default speed of light in true vacuum in full accordance with Maxwell's equations (not his wave theory).

The benefit of understanding that "kinetic energy" has "physical existence", is that it allows easy and coherent definition of "physically existing" localized electromagnetic photons, that can convert according to a clear mechanical process into "physically existing" electron-positron pairs, in full agreement with experimental evidence, and so on, and finally get out of the corner into which fundamental physics has been painting itself into for the past century and a half.

But to connect with this different paradigm, there is need to come to terms with whether or not "kinetic energy" really exists as a "substance".

To my knowledge, this possibility never was considered before.

The electromagnetic mechanics foundation grounded on this new paradigm is now complete and available for the up coming generation to consider.

Best Regards, André

Dear Frederick,

I analyzed more in depth the 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica definition of ‘Ether’, and this part in particular:

Quote: "…the ether is a perfectly incompressible continuous fluid, in a state of fine-grained vortex motion,… "

In mechanics, such "fine grained vortex motion" is related not to the transverse wave concept of a pulse travelling through a rigid medium, but to "surface waves" that travel along the boundary between two different deformable materials:

Quote: "Besides the two types of waves that can pass through the body of the Earth (or other substances) [longitudinal and transverse waves], there can also be surface waves that travel along the boundary between two materials. A wave on water is actually a surface wave that moves on the boundary between water and air. The motion of each particle of water at the surface is circular or elliptical, so it is a combination of transverse and longitudinal motion."

Ref: Giancoli, D.C. (2008). Physics for Scientists & Engineers. Upper Saddle River. NJ. Prentice Hall, page 402.

From this definition of surface waves, it seems that the "fine grained vortex motion" referred to in the Encyclopedia Britannica involves the "circular or elliptical" vortex like motion typical of surface waves into the classical concept of strict transverse wave.

This means that the authors of this definition associate to transverse waves propagating within a rigid substance known properties belonging to surface waves that propagate along a "boundary" between two deformable substances.

Best Regards, André

Dear André , It's interesting though that this was how they were thinking just coming up to WWII. Sir Oliver Lodge wrote the article, but it wasn't necessarily his own theory he was alluding to.

Incidentally I don't agree that the fluid is incompressible. This again gets back to the issue of the radial component of Coulomb's law not being involved in the propagation mechanism. The bit that is relevant is the transverse flow which is probably at a steady pressure, and so compressibility doesn't enter into the analysis. But it will certainly be compressible if it has to go down sinks and emerge from sources.

Dear Frederick,

You wrote: "Incidentally I don't agree that the fluid is incompressible."

Note that I just referred to the established physics definition used in engineering of transverse s-waves given in Giancoli that they can propagate only in "rigid" media. It is well known that transverse waves do not propagate through deformable media such as fluids because any transverse motion of the medium does not experience any restoring force.

It is also established that transverse waves cannot diametrically cross the Earth mass, which is why we know that at least some spherical layer within the Earth is fluid.

I must say that however it may be defined, as far as I understand electromagnetism, the "wave" concept is not required to explain the fundamental submicroscopic level, which is the level I paid attention to, even if it is useful and practical at our macroscopic level.

Note also that I do not deny the usefulness of the idealized electromagnetic wave concept at the macroscopic level.

Quote from page 1 of the paper on the de Broglie double-particle photon:

"Close examination of the concept in light of the macroscopic-submicroscopic comparison just clarified leads to the view that generally speaking, "wave behavior" could simply be the result of behavior of crowds of discrete photons that our macroscopic instruments generally deal with while "particle behavior" could simply be the behavior of individual photons at the submicroscopic level."

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards, André

André and Frederick,

I so wish I could share the structural details of the aether I will be publishing. It answers all of the compressible/incompressible/rigid, stationary/non-stationary, wave theory, vortex/non-vortex discussions shared today. All of them addressed, in an elegant dynamic structure. I can share that the medium consists of its anti-self, just as do all Standard Model (SM) particles, in fact it dictates why the anti-particles must exist, establishing itself as the structural authority over all matter and EM radiation.

I appreciate your insight into the pre-WWII aether, yet also agree with you Frederick that the aether is elastic and compressible, this only occurs due to the volumetric displacement of matter, onto which it attempts to rectify by way of gravity. Some other statements relating to the structure revealed to me:

• There is a level of compressability onto where transverse waves can still propagate.
• I am in agreement with the double particle photon, helping to explain the "spooky action at a distance".
• Michelson-Morley experimental results were correct, only their hypotheses and therefore conclusions were incorrect.
• The aether does operate as a fine grained vortex wave function at the Planck level, making the description of its transition into the macro a much simpler one.
• EM is simply a disturbance within the aether due to matter. Therefore to conceptualize EM, one must first conceptualize the authoritative aether (unless of course you're André).
• The "surface waves that travel along the boundary between two different deformable materials", exist between two adjacent aether vortex cells, just as Maxwell described early along his path.
• The aether wave function combines both elliptical and circular pathways at its most fundamental level, utilizing principle scale factors of 2, root2, root3 and the golden ratio, thereby addressing both the E and B inverse distance observables, among others.

I need to get busy and finish this. I'm up to over a hundred heavily detailed figures in the paper.

I did have a question:

When one speaks of the photon's momentum (or velocity), any charge held within it then also must have an associated B-field due to the longitudinal velocity component carrying that charge, yes? This is what I was referring to with my earlier statement concerning the longitudinal wave aspect of the photon.

Once the photon reaches an acceptable wavelength electron, it transfers its longitudinal (and transverse) energy, becoming one with the electron. I found that this longitudinal (and transverse) wave energy, once captured by the electron, simply oscillates within an expanded electron diameter, defining the photon "captured" state.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.,

You wrote: "I am in agreement with the double particle photon, helping to explain the "spooky action at a distance"."

Since you can visualize the trispatial structure of the double particle photon, you may also be able to visualize the actual coherent mechanics of conversion of such a photon of 1.022 MeV into a pair of electron-positron, that directly and mechanically accounts for the transfer of the double-particle photon's momentum half of its energy from X-space to Y-space, thus causing this other half of the photon's energy to acquire the property of "mass":

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear J.L.,

You ask: "I did have a question: When one speaks of the photon's momentum (or velocity), any charge held within it then also must have an associated B-field due to the longitudinal velocity component carrying that charge, yes? This is what I was referring to with my earlier statement concerning the longitudinal wave aspect of the photon. "

Yes. Note that it is the other way around in reality. The B-field (and the E-field) of the photon are not due to its velocity. The proof being that whatever intensity its E and B fields may have, the photon velocity remains invariant at c.

From the trispatial perspective, it is the fact that by structure, the photon's energy is systematically split into two orthogonal equal parts. One part (its momentum energy, making up half of its total quantum) always pushing against its transversely oriented other part (oscillating in a self-sustaining reciprocating manner between electric and magnetic states).

Whatever energy variation of the photon energy due to red shifting or blue shifting, for whatever reason, does not cause this equal split to vary, they both increase or diminish synchronously, as if the centroidal point allowed the three spaces to act as communicating vessels, always stabilizing into the half-half least action distribution between longitudinal momentum and transverse EM oscillation.

The electric charges of the electron correspond to the E-field whose equation you will find with its B-field counterpart as Equations (23) in the paper about the Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance states and in many other related papers.

The invariant unit charge of the electron, on its part exactly correspond to the invariant electron E-field that you will find with its corresponding B-field shown as Equations (22) in the same paper.

You wrote: "Once the photon reaches an acceptable wavelength electron, it transfers its longitudinal (and transverse) energy, becoming one with the electron. I found that this longitudinal (and transverse) wave energy, once captured by the electron, simply oscillates within an expanded electron diameter, defining the photon "captured" state."

In the trispatial set-up, once a photon reaches an electron, its energy can only combine with the energy of the carrier-photon that the electron already possesses. This longitudinal "and" transverse in-coming-photon energy becomes one (both incoming photon and carrier-photon merge together) with the already longitudinal "and" transverse energy that previously accompanied the electron and simply oscillates within an expanded Zitterbewegung beat defined volume of space that it visits as the electron moves when in free motion, or within an expanded Zitterbewegung beat defined volume of space that it visits if it is captive into some axial resonance state in some atomic orbital, which volume corresponds to the Schrödinger wave equation.

Looking forward to look into the compressible/incompressible/rigid, stationary/non-stationary, wave theory, vortex/non-vortex analysis that you are preparing. As I mentioned to David, I fully agree that this can be applied at the macroscopic level. I definitely see a possibility of connecting this with my quantized-no-ambient-aether submicroscopic perspective.

Best Regards, André

Dear André , When you talk about a B vector in connection with EM radiation, it must be remembered that it's the rate of change of B that is significant. There must therefore already be a value for B at any locality that EM radiation is passing through.

Do you envisage a photon to have size, and if so does the size vary with wavelength? I'm trying to understand how you see a photon connecting with the local magnetic field.