# Longitudinal electromagnetic waves

27 views

### z@z

Nov 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/24/99
to
Matthew Nobes wrote:
| DJMenCk wrote:

| > While Maxwell equations predict forces that are at right
| > angles to each other, they do not forbid longitudinal waves.
|
| Umm... Pardon me Dennis but can you _prove_ that?
|
| I would really, really like to see how Maxwell's equations can give a
| longitudinal wave.

It is easy to see that Maxwell's theory entails longitudinal
waves. It is simply so because the electric fields of a linearly
oscillating charge propagate at c.

Maxwell's theory did entail longitudinal waves in the same way as
it entailed an identity between the speed of light and the speed of
wire waves. Heinrich Hertz even declared his own measurements of the
speed of wire waves invalid for this theoretical reason, despite the
fact that he had reproduced a value of around 200'000 km/s several
times.

It is perfectly natural that Maxwell did also predict transversal
waves because it was known that light is a transversal wave and
Weber and Kohlrausch had shown in 1856 that the speed of light can
be derived in the same way from electromagnetic constants as the
velocity of other wave forms from their relevant constitutive
constants.

Only after having failed to detect longitudinal waves, Maxwell's
theory has been changed so that it does no longer predict
longitudinal waves. That's very typical:

1. All think that a theory predicts "A is true".
2. Finally unquestionable experiments show that A is false.
3. No problem, a shift in the interpretation, 'minor' changes
a well-confirmed prediction of the theory.

As far as I know there is a fundamental difference between
longitudinal wire waves and transversal waves:

- Photons are dragged by water or glass (drag effect of
Fresnel) according to relativistic velocity addition
- Wire waves are subject to classical addition

If this is true then it is especially puzzling inasfar as wire
waves have a velocity very similar to light in glass. Can
somebody confirm or refute the assumption/claim that the moving
electrons in wires are fully dragged by the wires?

### Stephen

Nov 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/24/99
to
In article <81gmj0$9d8$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

> Matthew Nobes wrote:
> | DJMenCk wrote:
>
> | > While Maxwell equations predict forces that are at right
> | > angles to each other, they do not forbid longitudinal waves.
> |
> | Umm... Pardon me Dennis but can you _prove_ that?
> |
> | I would really, really like to see how Maxwell's equations can give a
> | longitudinal wave.
>
> It is easy to see that Maxwell's theory entails longitudinal
> waves. It is simply so because the electric fields of a linearly
> oscillating charge propagate at c.

[snip spiel]

If it's that easy, I suggest you show us a derivation.

--
"The end of our foundation is knowledge of causes,
and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds
of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible."
- Francis Bacon, "New Atlantis".

### z@z

Nov 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/24/99
to
| As far as I know there is a fundamental difference between
| longitudinal wire waves and transversal waves:
|
| - Photons are dragged by water or glass (drag effect of
| Fresnel) according to relativistic velocity addition
| - Wire waves are subject to classical addition
|
| If this is true then it is especially puzzling inasfar as wire
| waves have a velocity very similar to light in glass. Can
| somebody confirm or refute the assumption/claim that THE MOVING
| ELECTRONS in wires are fully dragged by the wires?

There are certainly no electrons moving at around 200'000 km/s.
So the correct version of my last paragraph must be:

If this is true then it is especially puzzling inasfar as wire
waves have a velocity very similar to light in glass. Can

somebody confirm or refute the assumption/claim that THE WAVES

in wires are fully dragged by the wires?

Sorry, Wolfgang

### Matthew Nobes

Nov 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/24/99
to
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, z@z wrote:

> Matthew Nobes wrote:
> | DJMenCk wrote:
>
> | > While Maxwell equations predict forces that are at right
> | > angles to each other, they do not forbid longitudinal waves.
> |
> | Umm... Pardon me Dennis but can you _prove_ that?
> |
> | I would really, really like to see how Maxwell's equations can give a
> | longitudinal wave.
>
> It is easy to see that Maxwell's theory entails longitudinal
> waves. It is simply so because the electric fields of a linearly
> oscillating charge propagate at c.

Huh? How does this imply that the waves are Longitudinal.

> Maxwell's theory did entail longitudinal waves in the same way as
> it entailed an identity between the speed of light and the speed of
> wire waves. Heinrich Hertz even declared his own measurements of the
> speed of wire waves invalid for this theoretical reason, despite the
> fact that he had reproduced a value of around 200'000 km/s several
> times.

I see no proof of longitudinal waves here.

> It is perfectly natural that Maxwell did also predict transversal
> waves because it was known that light is a transversal wave and
> Weber and Kohlrausch had shown in 1856 that the speed of light can
> be derived in the same way from electromagnetic constants as the
> velocity of other wave forms from their relevant constitutive
> constants.

And... Your proof that Maxwell's equations have longitudinal wave
solutions begins where?

> Only after having failed to detect longitudinal waves, Maxwell's
> theory has been changed so that it does no longer predict
> longitudinal waves. That's very typical:
>
> 1. All think that a theory predicts "A is true".
> 2. Finally unquestionable experiments show that A is false.
> 3. No problem, a shift in the interpretation, 'minor' changes
> a well-confirmed prediction of the theory.

Please list how Maxwells equations have been changed since he first
presented them.

> As far as I know there is a fundamental difference between
> longitudinal wire waves and transversal waves:
>
> - Photons are dragged by water or glass (drag effect of
> Fresnel) according to relativistic velocity addition
> - Wire waves are subject to classical addition
>
> If this is true then it is especially puzzling inasfar as wire
> waves have a velocity very similar to light in glass. Can

> somebody confirm or refute the assumption/claim that the moving
> electrons in wires are fully dragged by the wires?

What "wire waves" are you refering to?

exsistence of longitudinal wave solutions mathmatically. Forget about any
interpretations for now, just demonstrate that it can be done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Matthew Nobes
|c/o Physics Dept.
|Simon Fraser University
|8888 University Drive
|Burnaby, B.C.
www.geocities.com/CollegePark/campus/1098 |

### Peter Jack

Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99
to

z@z wrote in message <81gmj0$9d8$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>...

>Matthew Nobes wrote:
>| DJMenCk wrote:
>
>| > While Maxwell equations predict forces that are at right
>| > angles to each other, they do not forbid longitudinal waves.
>|
>| Umm... Pardon me Dennis but can you _prove_ that?
>|
>| I would really, really like to see how Maxwell's equations can give a
>| longitudinal wave.
>
>
>Maxwell's theory did entail longitudinal waves in the same way as
>it entailed an identity between the speed of light and the speed of
>wire waves. Heinrich Hertz even declared his own measurements of the
>speed of wire waves invalid for this theoretical reason, despite the
>fact that he had reproduced a value of around 200'000 km/s several
>times.

The em-wave is transverse, but there is a "longitudinal" component
that does not contain "electric" or "magnetic" fields. It's a "thermal"
component. I describe this at my web site

http://webhome.idirect.com/~pmj/emgrav/phi7.html

and the background material to understand this is given
in my paper at

http://webhome.idirect.com/~pmj/emgrav/gindex.html

as the Aharonov-Bhom effect shows, even when the "electric"
and "magnetic" fields are "ZERO" there is still an effect seen
by the electromagnetic potential -- that means something must
be propagating "without transverse" vector components. It's
a scalar field, and only "longitudinal" propagation is left to explain
the experimental observations. So, they exist. Just not electric
or magnetic.

### Stephen

Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99
to
In article <Scf%3.5133$18.6...@quark.idirect.com>, "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> wrote: This inference is invalid. > It's > a scalar field, and only "longitudinal" propagation is left to explain > the experimental observations. So, they exist. Just not electric > or magnetic. You are badly behind the times and need to read up on Berry phases. ### Jos Bergervoet unread, Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99 to In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > The em-wave is transverse, but there is a "longitudinal" component > that does not contain "electric" or "magnetic" fields. It's a "thermal" > component. You're wrong to call it thermal, because what you describe is called a 'pure gauge'. It is just a set of potentials (scalar and vector) that does not give any fields. It does not give a rise in temperature either, so please stick to the standardized terminology. (but then again, do quarks have color? :-) > as the Aharonov-Bhom effect shows, even when the "electric" > and "magnetic" fields are "ZERO" there is still an effect seen If these fields are "ZERO" than they obviously are no example of longitudinally propagating waves. And the Aharonov-Bhom effect occurs for a static vector potential, so the vector potential in that case is also not a longitudinally propagating wave (it's no wave at all). -- Jos ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99 to Jos Bergervoet wrote in message ... >In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > >> The em-wave is transverse, but there is a "longitudinal" component >> that does not contain "electric" or "magnetic" fields. It's a "thermal" >> component. > >You're wrong to call it thermal, Why wrong? Where does "heat" ultimately come from? >because what you describe is >called a 'pure gauge'. Gauge Invariance is simply a way of saying "there is a degree of freedom" left in the electromagnetic field that represents a current "lack of complete understanding" of the em-field. I provide that understanding. >It is just a set of potentials (scalar >and vector) that does not give any fields. It is "not" potentials. It is the "derivative of" potentials. The electric and the magnetic fields are also "derivatives of" the potentials. They tell how the charged particle will "change momentum" when it comes under the "influence" of the vector fields. The scalar field tells how the charged particle will "change energy" when it comes under the "influence" of the scalar field, T. >It does not give a >rise in temperature either, No. Because, "Temperature" is a "macroscopic" concept that only applies at spacetime scales above the "collision scale" of the medium. When you're below the length scale of particle collisions, and below the time scale of collission times, you just have the Temporal field "thermal energy" to contend with. Without particle collisions there is no "macroscopic heat flow" -- which is the energy transfered by massive particles not massless photons. so please stick to the standardized >terminology. (but then again, do quarks have color? :-) > I do have a problem with T, and Temperature, somewhat, but I'm all out of ideas on new symbols. >> as the Aharonov-Bhom effect shows, even when the "electric" >> and "magnetic" fields are "ZERO" there is still an effect seen > >If these fields are "ZERO" than they obviously are no example of >longitudinally propagating waves. And the Aharonov-Bhom effect >occurs for a static vector potential, so the vector potential in >that case is also not a longitudinally propagating wave (it's >no wave at all). > How did the vector potential get there? I can change the magnetic field parameters in the solenoid of the Aharonov-Bhom experiment, and still have zero E,B, fields, yet the potentia will change. How does it do this? Instantaneously? ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99 to On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Jos Bergervoet wrote in message ... > >In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > > > >> The em-wave is transverse, but there is a "longitudinal" component > >> that does not contain "electric" or "magnetic" fields. It's a "thermal" > >> component. > > > >You're wrong to call it thermal, > > Why wrong? Where does "heat" ultimately come from? You answered that below. > >because what you describe is > >called a 'pure gauge'. > > Gauge Invariance is simply a way of saying "there is > a degree of freedom" left in the electromagnetic field > that represents a current "lack of complete understanding" > of the em-field. How do you mean? Gauge invariarience came about in the context of _classical_ electromagnetism (which was the source of my orginal question). In classcial theory the potentials are _totally_ unphysical. THere is no Aharanov-Bohm effect, nothing. The only reason that potentials are used is that they simplify calculations In this context their gauge invarieence is well understood. I really don't think that gauge invarience is not well understood in the quantum case either. It's simply an internal symmetry carried by the various fermion fields, in order for this to work, you also need gauge fields. This is all understood very well both physically, and mathmatically. In both cases general relativity provides a useful anaolgy. > I provide that understanding. I'm unclear what it is that is not understood. > >It is just a set of potentials (scalar > >and vector) that does not give any fields. > > It is "not" potentials. It is the "derivative of" > potentials. The electric and the magnetic > fields are also "derivatives of" the potentials. Huh? The potential is a four vector. It's derivatives give you the fields. I.e. F^{\mu\nu}=d^{\mu}A^{\nu}-d^{\nu}A^{\mu} What derivate are you refering too, since the field tensor is really the importent thing and it (in the electromagnetic case at least) is gauge invarient. > They tell how the charged particle will > > "change momentum" > > when it comes under the "influence" of the > vector fields. The scalar field tells how the > charged particle will > > "change energy" > > when it comes under the "influence" of the > scalar field, T. Huh. Unless by T you mean the regular scalar potential \phi this is just wrong. It's wrong anyways since the vector potential \vec{A} must certainly can change the energy of a particle. \vec{A} is non-zero in a TEM wavefor example. [snip some] > >> as the Aharonov-Bhom effect shows, even when the "electric" > >> and "magnetic" fields are "ZERO" there is still an effect seen > > > >If these fields are "ZERO" than they obviously are no example of > >longitudinally propagating waves. And the Aharonov-Bhom effect > >occurs for a static vector potential, so the vector potential in > >that case is also not a longitudinally propagating wave (it's > >no wave at all). > > > > How did the vector potential get there? > I can change the magnetic field parameters in the solenoid > of the Aharonov-Bhom experiment, and still have zero E,B, > fields, yet the potentia will change. How does it do this? > Instantaneously? This is confuesing me. First, the issue of the A-B effect has nothing to do with purely classical E&M and the question of wether Maxwell's equations permit longitudinal waves (which they do not). Second the Magnetic field is not zero everywhere in the A-B effect. It _is_ zero in the region of particle propagation, but it is non-zero in some region. And the vector potential which produces this field is non-zero in both regions. There are two ways of looking at this, one is to mantian just like in classical E&M that the potentials are not physical, only the E and B fields matter, but they can have non-local effects. The second is to allow the potentials to be physical things, but reuqire that all observable quantites be gauge invariant. This is AFAIK the most widely accepted view, certainly the one upon which the concept of gauge theory is founded. ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99 to Stephen wrote in message ... >In article <Scf%3.5133$18.6...@quark.idirect.com>, "Peter Jack"
><p...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>> z@z wrote in message <81gmj0$9d8$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>...
>> >Matthew Nobes wrote:
>> >| DJMenCk wrote:
>> >
>> The em-wave is transverse, but there is a "longitudinal" component
>> that does not contain "electric" or "magnetic" fields. It's a "thermal"
>> component. I describe this at my web site
>>
>> http://webhome.idirect.com/~pmj/emgrav/phi7.html
>>
>> and the background material to understand this is given
>> in my paper at
>>
>> http://webhome.idirect.com/~pmj/emgrav/gindex.html
>>

>> It's

>> a scalar field, and only "longitudinal" propagation is left to explain
>> the experimental observations. So, they exist. Just not electric
>> or magnetic.
>
> You are badly behind the times and need to read up on Berry phases.
>

Huh? You mean Pancharatnam? The brilliant Indian guy?

Look. These guys don't know the first thing about physics.
They should have talked to the Greeks. Or, gone to look
at the Great Pyramid in egypt. There are only three things
we measure in physics - "time", "length", and "concentration."
That's it. So, you tell me - What is the "Phase?"

The Potential is "Energy" . There are three basic modes of
action in spacetime - translation, rotation, and pulsation.
The only thing the E and B fields tell us is about "translation"
and "rotation." They say nothing about "pulsation." Which
is "internal energy" or "heat."

The fact that global geometries can affect local temperature
is what the great pyramid is all about. It's all about the
relationship of the local "fire" to the "geometry" -- or in modern
french grammer - global topological constraints on the local
potential gauge phase -- in easy language: "heat"

### Peter Jack

Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99
to

Matthew Nobes wrote in message ...

>On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote:
>

>> Gauge Invariance is simply a way of saying "there is
>> a degree of freedom" left in the electromagnetic field
>> that represents a current "lack of complete understanding"
>> of the em-field.
>
>How do you mean?

I mean Aharonov-Bhom can be explained by classical
em, and doesn't need QM.

>Gauge invariarience came about in the context of
>_classical_ electromagnetism (which was the source of my orginal
>question).

Nope. Guage invariance never had anything to do with classical
electromagnetism. Herman Weyl introduced the idea of a "gauge"
change in 1918 in the context of Einstein's Relativity, and "tried"
to link it to the potential of electromagnetism, but his "gauge"
idea was shot down by Einstein because his particular construction
caused a "scale" change in the length of vectors moved from point
to point in the space, an idea inconsistent with the principle of
special relativity.

Later, the idea was "resurected" and "adapted" for "quantum mechanics"
where the gauge became linked to a "phase". At that point, people began
to look back at classical electromagnetism and talk about the
"arbitrary characteristic" of the classical potential as its "gauge."

So, today, there is a "gauge" in modern-classical electromagnetism.

>In classcial theory the potentials are _totally_ unphysical.

Maxwell's original work placed the "potential" at the center
of electromagnetism- he thought they were the only thing
that was "physical", the fields were artifacts. The "Maxwellians"
Hertz, Helmholts, Lodge, Fitzgerald, etc.. changed this,
deleted the "potentials" and reversed the physical point
of view. But Maxwell and Faraday thought of the potential
as the real thing - a "tension" in the "medium" that was
"polarized" and "strained" by the presence of "sources."
Only when the Hetrz-Fitzgerald crowd got rid of the "vacuum"
as a "material medium" was the point of view changed,
because now, there was "no medium" to "strain"
"polarize" etc...

>THere is no Aharanov-Bohm effect, nothing.

Only because the "Temporal Field" i missing from
classical em. So, you couldn't think of such an "effect"
After all, when there is no E and no B, there is no
energy or "influence" in the classical view -- until
you realise there is also a T!

>The only reason that
>potentials are used is that they simplify calculations In this context
>their gauge invarieence is well understood.

this is the Heaviside point of view. Which is "wrong",
was wrong. And remains wrong.

>I really don't think that
>gauge invarience is not well understood in the quantum case either. It's
>simply an internal symmetry carried by the various fermion fields,

Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law"
What is being conserved by gauge invariance?

>> >It is just a set of potentials (scalar
>> >and vector) that does not give any fields.
>>
>> It is "not" potentials. It is the "derivative of"
>> potentials. The electric and the magnetic
>> fields are also "derivatives of" the potentials.
>
>Huh? The potential is a four vector. It's derivatives give you the
>fields. I.e.
>

I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A)
which is the "derivative" of the potential, not the potential
itself. The derivatives give you the fields--we both agree.
But, you only use the "vector fields", E and B. What about
the "scalar field" T ?

Why do you ignore this derivative?

### Bergervoet J.R.M.

Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99
to
In <...> "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> writes:
>Jos Bergervoet wrote in message ...
>> ... And the Aharonov-Bhom effect

>>occurs for a static vector potential, so the vector potential in
>>that case is also not a longitudinally propagating wave (it's
>>no wave at all).

>How did the vector potential get there?
>I can change the magnetic field parameters in the solenoid
>of the Aharonov-Bhom experiment, and still have zero E,B,
>fields, yet the potentia will change. How does it do this?
>Instantaneously?

No, the changes in the vector potential A propagate with the
speed of light, and while they do there are nonzero E and B
fields. You just have propagation of transverse waves during
the transient, still no longitudonal ones.

Cheers,
Jos

--
Dr. Jozef R. Bergervoet Electromagnetism and EMC
Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Building WS01 FAX: +31-40-2742224
E-mail: berg...@natlab.research.philips.com Phone: +31-40-2742403

### Bergervoet J.R.M.

Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99
to
In <g8p%3.7622$18.8...@quark.idirect.com> "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> writes: >Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law" >What is being conserved by gauge invariance? Electric charge (or more exact: the 4-divergence of J) >I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A) > ... >But, you only use the "vector fields", E and B. What about >the "scalar field" T ? And what about the "witchcraft field" and the "fairy tale field"? W = div(B) F = rot(E) + dB/dt But seriously, your T is considered more or less like an "unused wire in the cable" by EM theory. If your experiments show otherwise, then (and only then) you might try to change this opinion. -- Jos ### z@z unread, Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99 to Matthew Nobes wrote: | z@z (Wolfgang) wrote: | > It is easy to see that Maxwell's theory entails longitudinal | > waves. It is simply so because the electric fields of a linearly | > oscillating charge propagate at c. | | Huh? How does this imply that the waves are Longitudinal. If electrostatic attraction is explained by electric fields propagating at c, then the we get longitudinal waves propagating in both directions of the line given by the oscillating charge. Maybe Heinrich Hertz even had tried at first to detect longitudinal waves before he succeeded in detecting transversal waves. He writes about his first attempt: "Nor was there any greater difficulty in producing interference between the action which had travelled along the wire and that which had travelled through the air, and thus in comparing their phases. Now if both actions were propagated, as I expected, with one and the same finite velocity, they must at all distances interfere with the same phase. ... But when I had carefully set up the apparatus and carried out the experiment, I found that the phase of the interference was obviously different at different distances, and that the alternation was such as would correspond to an infinite rate of propagation in air. Disheartened, I gave up experimenting." See http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532021977 If my supposition is correct, then instead of detecting the expected longitudinal waves, he only found actions at distance from the "primary oscillation". | > It is perfectly natural that Maxwell did also predict transversal | > waves because it was known that light is a transversal wave and | > Weber and Kohlrausch had shown in 1856 that the speed of light can | > be derived in the same way from electromagnetic constants as the | > velocity of other wave forms from their relevant constitutive | > constants. | | And... Your proof that Maxwell's equations have longitudinal wave | solutions begins where? The existence of longitudinal wire waves is a fact. So if they cannot be derived (in a transparent way) from Maxwell's equations, then this is only further evidence of the inconsistency of Maxwell's theory. Cheers, Wolfgang My previous post of this thread: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552484432 ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99 to On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... > >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > > > >> Gauge Invariance is simply a way of saying "there is > >> a degree of freedom" left in the electromagnetic field > >> that represents a current "lack of complete understanding" > >> of the em-field. > > > >How do you mean? > > I mean Aharonov-Bhom can be explained by classical > em, and doesn't need QM. Umm, the Aharonov-Bohm effect changes the _phase_ of a wavefunction. That's a quantum mechanical thing. You don't need a quantum electromagnetic field, but you do need a quantum particle (like an electron) moving in a classical field. > >Gauge invariarience came about in the context of > >_classical_ electromagnetism (which was the source of my orginal > >question). > > Nope. Guage invariance never had anything to do with classical > electromagnetism. Huh? Please read J.D. Jackson _Classical_Electrodynaimcs_ (2nd ed.) page 220 and the partions leading up to it. Explain to me why his introduction of gauge invariance in this context is wrong. > Herman Weyl introduced the idea of a "gauge" > change in 1918 in the context of Einstein's Relativity, and "tried" > to link it to the potential of electromagnetism, but his "gauge" > idea was shot down by Einstein because his particular construction > caused a "scale" change in the length of vectors moved from point > to point in the space, an idea inconsistent with the principle of > special relativity. I believe that you are correct only in the sense that Weyl was the first person to explictly use the term "gauge invarience." However Weyl's theory was AFAIK not incompatible with SR (though it had other probelms which were critisied by Einstein, among others). Further gauge invairence in classical E&M is _not_ inconsistent with special relativity, see Jackson again this time read the last seven chapters. > Later, the idea was "resurected" and "adapted" for "quantum mechanics" > where the gauge became linked to a "phase". At that point, people began > to look back at classical electromagnetism and talk about the > "arbitrary characteristic" of the classical potential as its "gauge." This is simply not true. Gauge transformations were being used way earlier then this (where exactly do you think the term Lorentz gauge got it's name?). > So, today, there is a "gauge" in modern-classical electromagnetism. Again you history is a bit wrong. Further your assertion that gauge invairence is incompatible with SR is silly. > >In classcial theory the potentials are _totally_ unphysical. > > Maxwell's original work placed the "potential" at the center > of electromagnetism- he thought they were the only thing > that was "physical", the fields were artifacts. The "Maxwellians" > Hertz, Helmholts, Lodge, Fitzgerald, etc.. changed this, > deleted the "potentials" and reversed the physical point > of view. But Maxwell and Faraday thought of the potential > as the real thing - a "tension" in the "medium" that was > "polarized" and "strained" by the presence of "sources." > Only when the Hetrz-Fitzgerald crowd got rid of the "vacuum" > as a "material medium" was the point of view changed, > because now, there was "no medium" to "strain" > "polarize" etc... Huh? Please cite works of Faraday and/or Maxwell where they take the potential as more physical then the field. > >THere is no Aharanov-Bohm effect, nothing. > > Only because the "Temporal Field" i missing from > classical em. So, you couldn't think of such an "effect" > After all, when there is no E and no B, there is no > energy or "influence" in the classical view -- until > you realise there is also a T! When there is no E or B and the particle in question is being treated classically there is no Aharonov-Bohm effect observed. Therefore your T field is unnessecary. > >The only reason that > >potentials are used is that they simplify calculations In this context > >their gauge invarieence is well understood. > > this is the Heaviside point of view. Which is "wrong", > was wrong. And remains wrong. What on earth are you talking about? Maxwell's equation in Vacuum are (in nice units c=1 etc.) div(E)=0 curl(B)=dE/dt curl(E)=dB/dt div(B)=0 We introduce the vector potential A via curl(A)=B and the scalar potential phi via -grad(phi)-dA/dt=E. However we could alternatly introduce the vector potential A'=A+grad(lambda) and the scalar potential phi'=phi-d(lambda)/dt and the Maxwell equations above are unchanged. If that is wrong (and it isn't wrong mathmatically) please state an experimental result that disagrees with it. > >I really don't think that > >gauge invarience is not well understood in the quantum case either. It's > >simply an internal symmetry carried by the various fermion fields, > > Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law" > What is being conserved by gauge invariance? The charge. > >> >It is just a set of potentials (scalar > >> >and vector) that does not give any fields. > >> > >> It is "not" potentials. It is the "derivative of" > >> potentials. The electric and the magnetic > >> fields are also "derivatives of" the potentials. > > > >Huh? The potential is a four vector. It's derivatives give you the > >fields. I.e. > > > > I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A) > which is the "derivative" of the potential, not the potential > itself. The derivatives give you the fields--we both agree. > But, you only use the "vector fields", E and B. What about > the "scalar field" T ? > > Why do you ignore this derivative? Bucause there is absolutly not one shred of evdeince that requires it's introduction. Not one, not a single piece. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99 to On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, z@z wrote: > Matthew Nobes wrote: > | z@z (Wolfgang) wrote: > > | > It is easy to see that Maxwell's theory entails longitudinal > | > waves. It is simply so because the electric fields of a linearly > | > oscillating charge propagate at c. > | > | Huh? How does this imply that the waves are Longitudinal. > > If electrostatic attraction is explained by electric fields > propagating at c, then the we get longitudinal waves propagating in > both directions of the line given by the oscillating charge. Please prove this in detail. [snip Hertz quote] > If my supposition is correct, then instead of detecting the expected > longitudinal waves, he only found actions at distance from the > "primary oscillation". Please prove your supposition in detail. > > | > It is perfectly natural that Maxwell did also predict transversal > | > waves because it was known that light is a transversal wave and > | > Weber and Kohlrausch had shown in 1856 that the speed of light can > | > be derived in the same way from electromagnetic constants as the > | > velocity of other wave forms from their relevant constitutive > | > constants. > | > | And... Your proof that Maxwell's equations have longitudinal wave > | solutions begins where? > > The existence of longitudinal wire waves is a fact. Please demonstrate this in detail. > So if they > cannot be derived (in a transparent way) from Maxwell's equations, > then this is only further evidence of the inconsistency of > Maxwell's theory. Please state one experimental observation (classical experiments only) which disagrees with Maxell's theory. Failing that demonstrate that Maxwell's theory is mathmatically inconsistent. ### jddescr...@my-deja.com unread, Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99 to In article <g8p%3.7622$18.8...@quark.idirect.com>,

"Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes wrote in message ...
> >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote:
> >
>
> >> Gauge Invariance is simply a way of saying "there is
> >> a degree of freedom" left in the electromagnetic field
> >> that represents a current "lack of complete understanding"
> >> of the em-field.
> >
> >How do you mean?
>
> I mean Aharonov-Bhom can be explained by classical
> em, and doesn't need QM.
>
> >Gauge invariarience came about in the context of
> >_classical_ electromagnetism (which was the source of my orginal
> >question).
>
> Nope. Guage invariance never had anything to do with classical
> electromagnetism. Herman Weyl introduced the idea of a "gauge"

> change in 1918 in the context of Einstein's Relativity, and "tried"
> to link it to the potential of electromagnetism, but his "gauge"
> idea was shot down by Einstein because his particular construction
> caused a "scale" change in the length of vectors moved from point
> to point in the space, an idea inconsistent with the principle of
> special relativity.
>
> Later, the idea was "resurected" and "adapted" for "quantum mechanics"
> where the gauge became linked to a "phase". At that point, people
began
> to look back at classical electromagnetism and talk about the
> "arbitrary characteristic" of the classical potential as its "gauge."
>
> So, today, there is a "gauge" in modern-classical electromagnetism.
>
> >In classcial theory the potentials are _totally_ unphysical.
>
> Maxwell's original work placed the "potential" at the center
> of electromagnetism- he thought they were the only thing
> that was "physical", the fields were artifacts. The "Maxwellians"
> Hertz, Helmholts, Lodge, Fitzgerald, etc.. changed this,
> deleted the "potentials" and reversed the physical point
> of view. But Maxwell and Faraday thought of the potential
> as the real thing - a "tension" in the "medium" that was
> "polarized" and "strained" by the presence of "sources."
> Only when the Hetrz-Fitzgerald crowd got rid of the "vacuum"
> as a "material medium" was the point of view changed,
> because now, there was "no medium" to "strain"
> "polarize" etc...
>
> >THere is no Aharanov-Bohm effect, nothing.
>
> Only because the "Temporal Field" i missing from
> classical em. So, you couldn't think of such an "effect"
> After all, when there is no E and no B, there is no
> energy or "influence" in the classical view -- until
> you realise there is also a T!
>
> >The only reason that
> >potentials are used is that they simplify calculations In this
context
> >their gauge invarieence is well understood.
>
> this is the Heaviside point of view. Which is "wrong",
> was wrong. And remains wrong.
>
> >I really don't think that
> >gauge invarience is not well understood in the quantum case either.
It's
> >simply an internal symmetry carried by the various fermion fields,
>
> Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law"
> What is being conserved by gauge invariance?
>
> >> >It is just a set of potentials (scalar
> >> >and vector) that does not give any fields.
> >>
> >> It is "not" potentials. It is the "derivative of"
> >> potentials. The electric and the magnetic
> >> fields are also "derivatives of" the potentials.
> >
> >Huh? The potential is a four vector. It's derivatives give you the
> >fields. I.e.
> >
>
> I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A)
> which is the "derivative" of the potential, not the potential
> itself. The derivatives give you the fields--we both agree.
> But, you only use the "vector fields", E and B. What about
> the "scalar field" T ?
>
> Why do you ignore this derivative?
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

You are making some important points. You will have quite
an experience talking with the naive-new-agers and the dusty
ol dinosaurs, who are responsible for the relativity FAQ, in
these forums. I call them the king's men of science [ KMS ]
because they sing the king's chant [often the coppenheimer
interpretation of qm] and haven't memorized a new idea since
early high school. Running with the king's men herd is their
main life accomplishment. Thinking and truth seeking are just
propoganda devices for them in their big loot ivory towers.

Good seeing. JD

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### Matthew Nobes

Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99
to
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> You are making some important points.

Oh is he? This thread started when I asked Dennis to prove that Maxwell's
equations permit longitudinal wave solutions. So far, niether Dennis nor
anybody else has come up with anything beyond "proof" by assertion.

> You will have quite
> an experience talking with the naive-new-agers and the dusty
> ol dinosaurs, who are responsible for the relativity FAQ, in
> these forums. I call them the king's men of science [ KMS ]
> because they sing the king's chant [often the coppenheimer
> interpretation of qm] and haven't memorized a new idea since
> early high school. Running with the king's men herd is their
> main life accomplishment. Thinking and truth seeking are just
> propoganda devices for them in their big loot ivory towers.

Tell you what then. Instead of acting like an asshole, insulting people
equations and demonstrate that a longitudinal wave is a solution. Don't
tell me that it can be done but show no derivation, please prove it.

### jddescr...@my-deja.com

Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991126...@fraser.sfu.ca>,

Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > You are making some important points.
>
> Oh is he? This thread started when I asked Dennis to prove that
Maxwell's

> equations permit longitudinal wave solutions. So far, niether Dennis
nor
> anybody else has come up with anything beyond "proof" by assertion.
>
> > You will have quite
> > an experience talking with the naive-new-agers and the dusty
> > ol dinosaurs, who are responsible for the relativity FAQ, in
> > these forums. I call them the king's men of science [ KMS ]
> > because they sing the king's chant [often the coppenheimer
> > interpretation of qm] and haven't memorized a new idea since
> > early high school. Running with the king's men herd is their
> > main life accomplishment. Thinking and truth seeking are just
> > propoganda devices for them in their big loot ivory towers.
>
> Tell you what then. Instead of acting like an asshole, insulting
people
> equations and demonstrate that a longitudinal wave is a solution.
Don't
> tell me that it can be done but show no derivation, please prove it.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> |Matthew Nobes
> |c/o Physics Dept.
> |Simon Fraser University
> |8888 University Drive
> |Burnaby, B.C.
> www.geocities.com/CollegePark/campus/1098 |
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not interested in personal insults. Dennis is very
kind and gentile in the way he tolerates it but I don't
have that level of tolerance. I will answer your
what people like me object to about the KMS [King's Men
of Science] who crush the innovations of free thinking
families. This longitudinal EM is a damped nearfield wave
and I won't start from the Maxwell equations since they
are just a compact statement of physical principles which
can be visualized with words as Dennis has explained to you .

someone a "crackpot", a "troll", an "amateur", and on and on.
Do you recognize the KMS king's chant? This particular
"crackpot" was probably the greatest hands-on electrical
inventor the world has ever seen. His name was Nikola Tesla.
I assume you know how to research his accomplishments on the
there are longitudinal Electromagnetic phenomena. All of
Tesla's devices were predominately longitudinal and are
known in the extensive literature of open minded thinkers
as SCALAR PHOTONS. They are not radiated like transverse
waves since they do not become detached from the electrons
that form them, in the same way. The biggest source, before
the official involvements, was the Tesla site at Colorado
Springs before the turn of the century where he gathered
all his data. Such EM, instead of being the exception or
nonexistent you seem to think, is the predominant effect in
much of electromagnetics because everytime you charge a body
producing a displacment current these radial field
(longitudinal) effects are circled by the corresponding
magnetic field. Hertz had to go to great lengths to produce
a dipole and thus partially cancel this field so he could do
repeatable radiation measures on transverse EM. Since the
Tesla type source is what would usually be called a near
field effect it has the most spectacular effects as Tesla
planned to use it in the ionospheric earth cavity that he
understood and predicted.

Another "crackpot" heard from! Of course he did his
generator and power transmission and motor invention work
after escaping to America because in those days free people
could invent and explore and develope without the massive
king's men theft on all family business like today. Most
recently I estimated it as over 60% of all real wealth is
taken to FUND the KMS in their rabid defense of old dogmas
like coppenheimer, thus killing both real growth and product
trust. Have you thought of an Egyptian Air ride or a Texas
AGGEY bonfire or a day with the hitler socialists in Colorado?

### Peter Jack

Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99
to

Bergervoet J.R.M. wrote in message ...

>In <g8p%3.7622$18.8...@quark.idirect.com> "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> writes: > >>Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law" >>What is being conserved by gauge invariance? > >Electric charge (or more exact: the 4-divergence of J) > >>I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A) > >But seriously, your T is considered more or less like an "unused >wire in the cable" by EM theory. If your experiments show otherwise, >then (and only then) you might try to change this opinion. > Whether you realise it or not, you've just made the most important observation about classical em - "there *is* an unused cable" What you do not yet realise, is that there are *already* experiments that show where to use this cable. Some experimental results we've known since 1820. !!! I took that unused cable, plugged it into the wall of physics, and a light went on in the department of thermoelectricity. When I walked over to see what the light was, I found Thomson dead - but he died an honorable death - Hamilton resurrected from the grave...Tait vindicated... quaternions reborn with new life...and the mysteries of the sign changing charge current reversible heat effect found in conduction mediums all explained by a simple unified reformulated quaternionic electromagnetism, that now included the missing link to thermal phenomena. So I went back over to the electromagnetism department, and called out the names of the culprits at roll call -- Fitzgerald Hertz Helmholtz Heaviside Lodge Larmor Poynting and I put all the bandits into detention for holding up the progress of the physics class. ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to Bergervoet J.R.M. wrote in message ... >In <...> "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> writes: >>Jos Bergervoet wrote in message ... >>> ... And the Aharonov-Bhom effect >No, the changes in the vector potential A propagate with the >speed of light, and while they do there are nonzero E and B >fields. You just have propagation of transverse waves during >the transient, still no longitudonal ones. > Here is a changing vector potential A, define, A = grad( a.cos(Et + p.x) + b.sin(Et. + px) ) so curl(B) == 0, dA/dt !=0 where is the nonzero magnetic field? ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... >On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: >I believe that you are correct only in the sense that Weyl was the first >person to explictly use the term "gauge invarience." However Weyl's >theory was AFAIK not incompatible with SR (though it had other probelms >which were critisied by Einstein, among others). Further gauge invairence >in classical E&M is _not_ inconsistent with special relativity, see >Jackson again this time read the last seven chapters. See - "Essays on The Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory." edited by Akhlesh Lakhtakia, 1993, World Scientific Pub. ISBN 981-02-0854-5 >This is simply not true. Gauge transformations were being used way >earlier then this (where exactly do you think the term Lorentz gauge got >it's name?). > See the following thread - http://x37.deja.com/=sd/getdoc.xp?AN=552377947&search=thread&CONTEXT=9436786 80.480378931&HIT_CONTEXT=943678680.480378931&HIT_NUM=14&hitnum=2 there is also a follow up note, by J. Van Bladel, and another note by Ari Sihvola, in IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine, Vol.33, No.4, August 1991, pg.56, "Lorenz or Lorentz?" >> So, today, there is a "gauge" in modern-classical electromagnetism. > >Again you history is a bit wrong. > Feel free to correct it. My info comes from the limited books I've read. New references welcome. >Further your assertion that gauge invairence is incompatible with SR is >silly. > Again, it's Weyl's original gauge idea that was rejected. See the reference by Akhlesh Lakhtakia for why this was so. ... > >Huh? Please cite works of Faraday and/or Maxwell where they take the >potential as more physical then the field. > The book by Akhlesh Lakhtakia gives some of them. If you need further references still, I'll look them up the next time I'm in the lib. And give a listing in this thread for reference. >> I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A) >> which is the "derivative" of the potential, not the potential >> itself. The derivatives give you the fields--we both agree. >> But, you only use the "vector fields", E and B. What about >> the "scalar field" T ? >> >> Why do you ignore this derivative? > >Bucause there is absolutly not one shred of evdeince that requires it's >introduction. Not one, not a single piece. The evidence has been around since 1820. ### Jos Bergervoet unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > Whether you realise it or not, you've just made the most important > observation about classical em ... Thanks! I often do things like that. This probably means that I'll share the Nobel prize with you? > I took that unused cable, plugged it into the wall of physics, > and a light went on in the department of thermoelectricity. Aha, your experiments involve generating light! Are you sure the light was not a result of more normal causes, as described in standard theory? Did you publish your measurements? Have the results been reproduced independently by other experimenters? -- Jos ### Jos Bergervoet unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > Bergervoet J.R.M. wrote in message ... >>>> [... the Aharonov-Bhom effect ...] >>No, the changes in the vector potential A propagate with the >>speed of light, and while they do there are nonzero E and B > A = grad( a.cos(Et + p.x) + b.sin(Et. + px) ) Completely wrong solution! The errors are: 0) Don't use E if you mean \omega, E=electric field (use w?) 1) This is not the A that you get around a solenoid in an Aharonov-Bhom experiment with time-dependent current (hint: that one contains a Hankel function of order 1). 2) If you create this A, then it will not cause a phase shift in the electron wave-function over any closed path. 3) Your A can only propagate through free space, if augmented with scalar potential Phi = d/dt (a cos(..) + b sin(..) ) and in that case, it is unobservable. Your solution has no E-field, no B-field, and no Aharonov-Bohm effect! So you have once again created one of your favorite pure gauge solutions. Instead of showing us that they have (as you seem to think) any physical meaning, you only showed that they have NO physical meaning! Please note that in physics we are fully aware that these solutions exist. But they don't give any observable effects. You seem to disagree, but you give no evidence. -- Jos ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... > >On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > > >I believe that you are correct only in the sense that Weyl was the first > >person to explictly use the term "gauge invarience." However Weyl's > >theory was AFAIK not incompatible with SR (though it had other probelms > >which were critisied by Einstein, among others). Further gauge invairence > >in classical E&M is _not_ inconsistent with special relativity, see > >Jackson again this time read the last seven chapters. > > See - "Essays on The Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory." > edited by Akhlesh Lakhtakia, 1993, World Scientific Pub. > ISBN 981-02-0854-5 For what? The history of Weyl's idea (which I don't much care about) or the gauge invariance of electromagnetism (which is provable fact and certainly compatible with special relativity). > >This is simply not true. Gauge transformations were being used way > >earlier then this (where exactly do you think the term Lorentz gauge got > >it's name?). > > > > See the following thread - > http://x37.deja.com/=sd/getdoc.xp?AN=552377947&search=thread&CONTEXT=9436786 > 80.480378931&HIT_CONTEXT=943678680.480378931&HIT_NUM=14&hitnum=2 > > there is also a follow up note, by J. Van Bladel, and another note > by Ari Sihvola, in IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine, Vol.33, > No.4, August 1991, pg.56, "Lorenz or Lorentz?" Opp your right. I forgot about that (there was a discussion here a while back on the same point). My point still stands though since IIRC Lorenz was around at the same time (or thereabouts) as Lorentz. > >> So, today, there is a "gauge" in modern-classical electromagnetism. > > > >Again you history is a bit wrong. > > > > Feel free to correct it. My info comes from the limited > books I've read. New references welcome. I'm not much interested in discussing history. All I really wanted from my orginal question was a _longitudinal wave_ solution of Maxwell's equations. I've yet to see one. > >Further your assertion that gauge invairence is incompatible with SR is > >silly. > > > > Again, it's Weyl's original gauge idea that was rejected. See the > reference by Akhlesh Lakhtakia for why this was so. Then it is an irrelevent side issue. The gaue invariance of E&M is what we were discussing not the orginal of the term. > >Huh? Please cite works of Faraday and/or Maxwell where they take the > >potential as more physical then the field. > > > The book by Akhlesh Lakhtakia gives some of them. If you need further > references still, I'll look them up the next time I'm in the lib. And give > a listing in this thread for reference. Please do. I'm resonably sure that Faraday (not mathmatically inclined) worked primarly in terms of the fields. As for Maxwell perhaps Paul Stowe could comment on what he prefered to work with. > >> I was refering to the Temporal Field = T = -1/c.dU/dt + div(A) > >> which is the "derivative" of the potential, not the potential > >> itself. The derivatives give you the fields--we both agree. > >> But, you only use the "vector fields", E and B. What about > >> the "scalar field" T ? > >> > >> Why do you ignore this derivative? > > > >Bucause there is absolutly not one shred of evdeince that requires it's > >introduction. Not one, not a single piece. > > The evidence has been around since 1820. Proof by emphatic assertion. Please cite one (or better yet more) classical electromagnetic experiment that cannot be explained by Maxwell E&M and can be explained by the field you are talking about. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991126...@fraser.sfu.ca>, > Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > You are making some important points. > > > > Oh is he? This thread started when I asked Dennis to prove that > > Maxwell's > > equations permit longitudinal wave solutions. So far, niether Dennis > > nor > > anybody else has come up with anything beyond "proof" by assertion. > > > > > You will have quite > > > an experience talking with the naive-new-agers and the dusty > > > ol dinosaurs, who are responsible for the relativity FAQ, in > > > these forums. I call them the king's men of science [ KMS ] > > > because they sing the king's chant [often the coppenheimer > > > interpretation of qm] and haven't memorized a new idea since > > > early high school. Running with the king's men herd is their > > > main life accomplishment. Thinking and truth seeking are just > > > propoganda devices for them in their big loot ivory towers. > > > > Tell you what then. Instead of acting like an asshole, insulting > > people > > why don't you answer my damn question. Just start with the Maxwell > > equations and demonstrate that a longitudinal wave is a solution. > > Don't > > tell me that it can be done but show no derivation, please prove it. > > I'm not interested in personal insults. Dennis is very > kind and gentile in the way he tolerates it but I don't > have that level of tolerance. I will answer your > insulting question only because it might help you to see > what people like me object to about the KMS [King's Men > of Science] who crush the innovations of free thinking > families. I wasn't insulting you. I was pointing out that you are being extremly insulting refering to modern physicists as essentially a bunch of sheep. > This longitudinal EM is a damped nearfield wave > and I won't start from the Maxwell equations since they > are just a compact statement of physical principles which > can be visualized with words as Dennis has explained to you . Hmmm. I doubt that even Dennis would dispute the fact that Maxwell's equations correectly descirbe the results of every know classical electromagnetic experiment. That's why I want to see a proof starting from there. FUrther IIRC Dennis explcitly stated that he believes Maxwell's equaitons _do_ support longitudinal wave solutions. > The answer is about what the KMS delight in, labeling > someone a "crackpot", a "troll", an "amateur", and on and on. > Do you recognize the KMS king's chant? It's not a chant, it's a correct description of those who purport to critize modern physics without a basic knowledge of what it is. > This particular "crackpot" was probably the greatest hands-on > electrical inventor the world has ever seen. His name was Nikola > Tesla. I assume you know how to research his accomplishments on the > web so I'll just directly answer your question. Please humor me with a reference or two. > Of course there are longitudinal Electromagnetic phenomena. Ahh yes further proof by emphatic assertion. > All of Tesla's devices were predominately longitudinal and are known > in the extensive literature of open minded thinkers as SCALAR PHOTONS. > They are not radiated like transverse waves since they do not become > detached from the electrons that form them, in the same way. The > biggest source, before the official involvements, was the Tesla site > at Colorado Springs before the turn of the century where he gathered > all his data. Such EM, instead of being the exception or nonexistent > you seem to think, is the predominant effect in much of > electromagnetics because everytime you charge a body producing a > displacment current these radial field (longitudinal) effects are > circled by the corresponding magnetic field. Hertz had to go to great > lengths to produce a dipole and thus partially cancel this field so he > could do repeatable radiation measures on transverse EM. Since the > Tesla type source is what would usually be called a near field effect > it has the most spectacular effects as Tesla planned to use it in the > ionospheric earth cavity that he understood and predicted. Please cite on such experiment in detail which cannot be explained with classical E&M. I know about near field effects BTW, they are not exaplmes of Longitudinal wave propagation. Further, the term scalar photon is not likely to have been used in Tesla's time (before QM IIRC) and the modern useage certainly doesn't coincide with anything that you are saying. > Another "crackpot" heard from! Of course he did his > generator and power transmission and motor invention work > after escaping to America because in those days free people > could invent and explore and develope without the massive > king's men theft on all family business like today. Most > recently I estimated it as over 60% of all real wealth is > taken to FUND the KMS in their rabid defense of old dogmas > like coppenheimer, thus killing both real growth and product > trust. Have you thought of an Egyptian Air ride or a Texas > AGGEY bonfire or a day with the hitler socialists in Colorado? Huh? I don't know what your adgenda is, but I am _NOT_ interested in discussing socialism or conspiracy theories with you. Further I am most emphatically _NOT_ interested in your "most recent estimates" of anything. Go to alt.taxes or alt.the.governement.takes.too.much.of.my.money for such a discussion. By the way, as I mentioned before, these "old dogmas" and "coppenheimer" things you rant on about are responsible for the massive semiconductor device which you are useing to type up your posts. If one defines "real" gorwth by the number of new inventions 20th century science outpaces, by far, any period in the past. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Bergervoet J.R.M. wrote in message ... > >In <...> "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> writes: > >>Jos Bergervoet wrote in message ... > >>> ... And the Aharonov-Bhom effect > >No, the changes in the vector potential A propagate with the > >speed of light, and while they do there are nonzero E and B > >fields. You just have propagation of transverse waves during > >the transient, still no longitudonal ones. > > > > > Here is a changing vector potential A, > define, > > A = grad( a.cos(Et + p.x) + b.sin(Et. + px) ) > > so curl(B) == 0, > > dA/dt !=0 > > where is the nonzero magnetic field? There isn't one, and hence there is no A-B effect. It needs a magnetic flus through some region around which the particles pass. See L. Ballentine _Quantum Mechanics_ for a discussion. THe second edition also contains a short section on the Berry phase which might clear up some of your confusion. ### jdescript unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991127...@fraser.sfu.ca>, Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote: the comments following this response. I'm amazed that anyone discusses science with you at all. I've now experienced the quibbling to avoid a point that Dennis has often revealed. Apparently science ,to you, is a king's men game of overing people, a kind of socialist- madbeast-eat-socialist-madbeast contest. You didn't know about longitudinal EM and now you do but is it Maxwell's equation? is there an official king's men reference beyond the history of the inventor Nikola Tesla? No! not from me, it's just factual truth telling and honest learning that obviously isn't part of your agenda. The Tesla power inventions [ you've heard of ac power I hope ], the electric motor [ you've heard of the ac motor I hope ] and the other grand inventions he made aren't known to you because the monopoly that feeds your ivory tower doesn't say TESLA. I repeat what I said to Peter Jack; > > > > You will have quite > > > > an experience talking with the naive-new-agers and the dusty > > > > ol dinosaurs, who are responsible for the relativity FAQ, in > > > > these forums. I call them the king's men of science [ KMS ] > > > > because they sing the king's chant [often the coppenheimer > > > > interpretation of qm] and haven't memorized a new idea since > > > > early high school. Running with the king's men herd is their > > > > main life accomplishment. Thinking and truth seeking are just > > > > propoganda devices for them in their big loot ivory towers. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article > <Pine.GSO.4.21.991126...@fraser.sfu.ca>, > > Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > > > You are making some important points. > > >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! ### Bennett Standeven unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... > >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > > > >> Gauge Invariance is simply a way of saying "there is > >> a degree of freedom" left in the electromagnetic field > >> that represents a current "lack of complete understanding" > >> of the em-field. > > > >How do you mean? > > I mean Aharonov-Bhom can be explained by classical > em, and doesn't need QM. If we are talking about classical EM, gauge invariance is already understood, and there is nothing left to explain. [...] > >In classcial theory the potentials are _totally_ unphysical. > > Maxwell's original work placed the "potential" at the center > of electromagnetism- he thought they were the only thing > that was "physical", the fields were artifacts. The "Maxwellians" > Hertz, Helmholts, Lodge, Fitzgerald, etc.. changed this, > deleted the "potentials" and reversed the physical point > of view. But Maxwell and Faraday thought of the potential > as the real thing - a "tension" in the "medium" that was > "polarized" and "strained" by the presence of "sources." Pray tell, how can a "medium" have less than no "tension"? [...] > >The only reason that > >potentials are used is that they simplify calculations In this context > >their gauge invarieence is well understood. > > this is the Heaviside point of view. Which is "wrong", Unfortunately, it is right, even if it is "wrong". > >I really don't think that > >gauge invarience is not well understood in the quantum case either. It's > >simply an internal symmetry carried by the various fermion fields, > > Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law" > What is being conserved by gauge invariance? Duh, electric charge. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, jdescript wrote: > the comments following this response. > > I'm amazed that anyone discusses science with you at all. > I've now experienced the quibbling to avoid a point that > Dennis has often revealed. Sorry if you think it's quibbling. I asked a simple question, which should be directly provable, without reference to history, just with equations. The interpretation of said equations is largely irrelevent here as well. SO long as E is the electric field and B is the magnetic. That's all that is needed. Again: why is it quibbling to ask you for proof of your assertions? > Apparently science ,to you, is a king's men game of overing people, a > kind of socialist- madbeast-eat-socialist-madbeast contest. Huh? Again I ask you not to insult me, r put word in my mouth or thoughts in my head. > You didn't know about longitudinal EM and now you do but is it > Maxwell's equation? This makes no sense. > is there an official king's men reference > beyond the history of the inventor Nikola Tesla? No! not > from me, it's just factual truth telling and honest > learning that obviously isn't part of your agenda. I'm more then willing to learn if you will **prove** your contentions. Is it that difficult? You've made three posts now of substantial length. I could have easly demonstrated the exsistence of transverse waves in the amount of space you've used. > The Tesla power inventions [ you've heard of ac power > I hope ], Sure, and how is this not described by Maxwell's equations? Maybe one needs a bit of elementary solid state physics as well. > the electric motor [ you've heard of the ac motor I hope ] Again what about this is not described by maxwell's equations and a bit of elementary thermodynamics? > and the other grand inventions he made aren't known to you because the > monopoly that feeds your ivory tower doesn't say TESLA. I repeat what > I said to Peter Jack; I've heard the name Tesla before. I'm not an engineer though. I would like to point out that you have not mentioned any effect to date that Maxwell's equations cannot descirbe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Bennett Standeven wrote in message ... > > > > > > >> Every "Invariance" is a "Symmetry" that implies a "conservation law" > >> What is being conserved by gauge invariance? > > > >Duh, electric charge. > > > > Duh? How about a proof? Or, at least a reference > to a proof? Who says this? Take a look at Noether's theorem, it's not usually emphasised in classical textbooks, but Peskin and Schroeder prove it in detail for any classical field theory. Any invariance in the lagrangian of the theory (i.e. gauge invariance) will lead to a conserved quantity (in this case electric charge). It is a well known mathmatical result, proved early this century. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/27/99 to On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... > >On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > > >> > >> See - "Essays on The Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory." > >> edited by Akhlesh Lakhtakia, 1993, World Scientific Pub. > >> ISBN 981-02-0854-5 > > > >For what? The history of Weyl's idea (which I don't much care about) or > >the gauge invariance of electromagnetism (which is provable fact and > >certainly compatible with special relativity). > > > > If you looked you'd understand. That book contains a collection of > articles on em, some dealing particularily with all the experimental > results that classical em fails to explain. There is another book > "Newtonian Electrodynamics" by the two Graneaus, that deals > with the experimental electromagnetic phenomena that neither > classical em nor quantum electrodynamics explains, causing them > to review the weber version (old german electrodynamics). That is, > if you're interested in other ideas. Of course, if you feel you already > know the correct theory, there is nothing there to learn. Well I'll take a look. AFAIK there is no result which disagrees with Maxwell electrodynamics. I have (very briefly) looked at "Newtonian Electrodynamics" I seem to recal (from their preface only) that they treat some situation in which the Lorentz force law does not hold. While interesting this does not change Maxwell's equations and has no bearing on the issue of longitudinal waves. Of course like I said I just saw the preface. > >> The evidence has been around since 1820. > > > >Proof by emphatic assertion. Please cite one (or better yet > >more) classical electromagnetic experiment that cannot be explained by > >Maxwell E&M and can be explained by the field you are talking about. > > I could not show a painting to a blind man. While instead of writing the paragraph below you _could_ have cited a few experimental reesults which disagree with the Maxwell theory. > I can only tell him that it was there on the wall for many years. Or you could cite the experiments. > I say to you that the Thomson Heat equation is just the "first > circuital law" of the quaternion electromagnetic equation I give at my > web site. At some point, I will have another paper there giving all > the details. However, you don't need to wait for my paper, because it > is "so" obvious. I don't know if you're scientifically blind. But, if > you can think, you can see it. You may disagree with it. But, at least > you "should" be able to see it. It is no more difficult to extract > this from the first circuital law, than any freshman homework problem > in college physics. Wow, I had no idea when I asked my orginal question that it would be soooo difficult to get a straight answer. I want one of two things 1) direct proof that Maxwell's equations permit Longitudinal wave solutions. I.e. start with Maxwell's equations then prove a longitudinal wave solution. 2) And experiment that demonstrates that _Maxwell's equations_ (not the Lorentz force law) are incorrect, and the presentation of a theory which includes longitudinal waves, that explains the experiment. So far all I have is proof by repeated assertion, and irrevlent issues of history. Not to mention references to effects which do not apply to the situation under disscussion. ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... >On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > >> >> See - "Essays on The Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory." >> edited by Akhlesh Lakhtakia, 1993, World Scientific Pub. >> ISBN 981-02-0854-5 > >For what? The history of Weyl's idea (which I don't much care about) or >the gauge invariance of electromagnetism (which is provable fact and >certainly compatible with special relativity). > If you looked you'd understand. That book contains a collection of articles on em, some dealing particularily with all the experimental results that classical em fails to explain. There is another book "Newtonian Electrodynamics" by the two Graneaus, that deals with the experimental electromagnetic phenomena that neither classical em nor quantum electrodynamics explains, causing them to review the weber version (old german electrodynamics). That is, if you're interested in other ideas. Of course, if you feel you already know the correct theory, there is nothing there to learn. >> >> The evidence has been around since 1820. > >Proof by emphatic assertion. Please cite one (or better yet >more) classical electromagnetic experiment that cannot be explained by >Maxwell E&M and can be explained by the field you are talking about. I could not show a painting to a blind man. I can only tell him that it was there on the wall for many years. I say to you that the Thomson ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to jdescript wrote in message <11f733ec...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>... > >The Tesla power inventions [ you've heard of ac power >I hope ], the electric motor [ you've heard of the ac >motor I hope ] and the other grand inventions he made >aren't known to you because the monopoly that feeds your >ivory tower doesn't say TESLA. I repeat what I said to >Peter Jack; > And I will say this to you, there "may" be King's men, but there is also a God. And so the question becomes, who is greater? I've read with keen interest the tales of Mr. Tesla. I've even noted, that in Tesla's own biography, he reports of being "instructed" to "de-emphasise" some of his original ideas, and not to dwell on them in his lectures. Which he complies with. Revealing that some were indeed concerned about his ideas. Tesla's own father called him the devil. And Tesla's autobiography reveals that he was often under the mysterious "influence" of some supernatural force. From my own personal experience, I know that the "King's" men, if they exist, are "nothing" compared to the forces that are at work in the world. Forces that science cannot understand at present, and will not accept either. In my own view, there is a natural law out there, much like "Lenz's Law" in electromagnetism. In fact, I think that the two laws are very closely linked together, and may even be the same law. And it is that "any new change" introduced into a closed system will cause that system to react in such a way to "oppose" the change. You get my drift? It is not the "King's" men. It will oppose even the "King's" men of science, if they try to change. This is the law that keeps the world "stable". It is a mystical law of nature. And it holds true on many levels of existance. When change does come, it is "catastrophic", like a "phase change", a "scale jump", etc.. but between the "transition points" there is "stasis"., or very slow change, called evolution. Stars explode! ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to Jos Bergervoet wrote in message <81oceh$qo4$3...@news.IAEhv.nl>... >In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > >> Whether you realise it or not, you've just made the most important >> observation about classical em ... > >Thanks! I often do things like that. This probably means that I'll >share the Nobel prize with you? > r'yu with me, or a'gin me? You don't get to share the Noble prize with the winner by attacking his theory, but by joining forces and defeating ignorance with him ;) >> I took that unused cable, plugged it into the wall of physics, >> and a light went on in the department of thermoelectricity. > >Aha, your experiments involve generating light! Yes, it's called "enlightenment." Spiritual gurus would understand. >Are you sure the >light was not a result of more normal causes, as described in >standard theory? Did you publish your measurements? Have the >results been reproduced independently by other experimenters? > Yes, Yes, ....., other experimenters I depended on. And I published "part" of my theory at my web site to explain their results. Actually, the new equations do contain the missing link to magnetism too. That is, it is known that thermo-electric effects are affected by the presence of magnetic fields, just not exactly why or how. But, my equations give the exact relationship, so there should be something to "verify" in the future too. That should really test the theory. The present theory is simply "postulated" ad hoc to fit the test data. My theory shows how to derive the results from first principles. Isn't that what physics is all about? ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... >> This longitudinal EM is a damped nearfield wave >> and I won't start from the Maxwell equations since they >> are just a compact statement of physical principles which >> can be visualized with words as Dennis has explained to you . > >Hmmm. I doubt that even Dennis would dispute the fact that Maxwell's >equations correectly descirbe the results of every know classical >electromagnetic experiment. What does this mean? You have said nothing here. You say Maxwell's equations correctly describe....and then you say....every known "classical em experiment".. well what on earth is a "classical em experiment" to you? See the book "Newtonian Electrodynamics" by the two Graneaus. They deal with the "classical experiments" that Maxwell's equation can't explain, nor can QED. But, you can always "define" the experiment to "be" non-classical when Maxwell's equations fail to fit the data. Maxwell's eqns only work with "slowly changing" or "smoothly varying" fields. When it comes to "sharp pulses" like "electric sparks" the equations don't explain the energy involved. And "sparks" are "old" and "classical" electric experimental phenomena. ### Jos Bergervoet unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: >>> What is being conserved by gauge invariance? >>Duh, electric charge. > Duh? How about a proof? Or, at least a reference Hi Peter, I would advise Steven Weinberg, "The quantum theory of fields, part II" (Cambridge press, 1996). With a recent book like that, you'll be ahead of your oponents. It treats the non-abelian case, and you'll find many more "spilled" degrees of freedom (like your T field). You will be thrilled by Section 15.6, where the "ghost" and "anti-ghost" fields are introduced to deal with unobservable degrees of freedom. Of course you might be dissapointed that the idea is not new (in physics, we call them "Faddeev-Popov ghosts" since the late sixties.) -- Jos ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... > > >> This longitudinal EM is a damped nearfield wave > >> and I won't start from the Maxwell equations since they > >> are just a compact statement of physical principles which > >> can be visualized with words as Dennis has explained to you . > > > >Hmmm. I doubt that even Dennis would dispute the fact that Maxwell's > >equations correectly descirbe the results of every know classical > >electromagnetic experiment. > > What does this mean? You have said nothing here. You say Maxwell's > equations correctly describe....and then you say....every known > "classical em experiment".. well what on earth is a "classical em > experiment" to you? One in which quantum mechanics can be ignored. > See the book "Newtonian Electrodynamics" by the two Graneaus. They > deal with the "classical experiments" that Maxwell's equation can't > explain, nor can QED. But, you can always "define" the experiment to > "be" non-classical when Maxwell's equations fail to fit the data. Okay you have referened that, and I will take another look at it on monday when I'm in the library. Like I said I saw it once before, and scanned the preface. In the preface they explictly state that it is the _Lorentz force law_ that doesn't describe certain systems, _not_ the Maxwell equations. Again as I said, if this is the case it has _no_ bearing on longitudinal waves. > Maxwell's eqns only work with "slowly changing" or "smoothly varying" > fields. When it comes to "sharp pulses" like "electric sparks" the > equations don't explain the energy involved. And "sparks" are "old" > and "classical" electric experimental phenomena. I'll take a look. Perhaps you could reference _where_ in the book they say that Maxwell's equations break down (as opposed to the Loerntz force law that they discuss in the preface). Further I've yet to see a demonstration that _your_ theory is the one that explains the results. Or that the results have _anything_ to do with longitudinal waves. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99 to On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Matthew Nobes wrote in message ... > > > > >Further I've yet to see a demonstration that _your_ theory is the one that > >explains the results. Or that the results have _anything_ to do with > >longitudinal waves. > > > > > The book is currently charged out of my library here, and I don't have > notes on it. But, I'll look when it gets back in. I looked at that > book some time ago, and was led there by another reference which also > deals with similar issues, but I don't recall that ref. at the moment. > However, I didn't have that particularly in mind when I went about > developing my theory, I only considered thermoelectricity, a > completely different topic all together.(but maybe all are now > connected) Well, like I said I'll look it up tommorrow in the library. But I do explictly remember that they mentioned in their preface that the Lorentz force law breaks down. This is not the same as a breakdown of the field equations, and I am fairly sure that they would have mentioned field equation breakdown in their preface if this was the case. > However, I can also see how my theory might explain the energy > discrepancy here too, in the electric spark discharge. For, instead of > E^2 + H^2, for the energy in a unit volume of the field, we should > have T^2 + E^2 + H^2. And I note, that according to Heitler the "idea" > that E^2 + H^2 is the correct energy density for the em-field is a > "postulate" not a derived result. It is "consistent" with the poynting > vector E x H , another "postulate", in that together they can be shown > to satisfy the law of conservation of energy and momentum. Umm, that can't be right. Again I reference you to Noether's theorem. The Hamlitonian of classical E&M is time translation invarient. This implies (by Noether's theorem) that energy is conserved. Further Noether's theorem gives you the machinery to derive the energy density. This is pure mathmatics here. I.e. if Maxwell's equations are correct then the energy density is E^2+B^2, this follows from the Lagrangain (or Hamiltonian) and is not an additional postualte of the theory. The same goes for the Poynting vector. > But, as I recall, the spark discharge has been found to deliver "more" > energy than can be explained by that which was originally in the field > before discharge. It packs a bigger punch, so to speak, than you'd > expect. It could very well be the same Lorentz force mentioned in the > preface of that book. Since the work done by the charges during > discharge is just the Lorentz force on the charges times the distance > through which the charges are moved, i.e. the length of the discharge > arc. But not recalling the details at the moment, nor having the > reference at hand, I'll defer discussion of this to later. However, > the point I want to make here is that I can explain the "extra" > energy, because my T says there is an energy component that is not > being accounted for. And depending on the circumstances, the error > introduced by ignoring T is greater or smaller. Like I said I'll look it up Monday. I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the approximations that one uses to develop the macroscopic Lorentz force law break down at some point. This could easly happen in a system with rapidly varying high strentgh fields. It is possible (though more unlikely) that hte same thing applies to the field equations. It is concivable that the marcoscopic Maxwell's equations derived from the underlying microscopic situation, differ from the standard "textbook" form. Such systems are well known. However this is _not_ evidence that the field equations are wrong on a small scale, merely that the approximations that one uses to treat large sacle systems break down. > Look at it this way, suppose you have a number of heavy rubber > balloons, filled with hot gas, with a total rubber + gas weight giving > an effective density greater than air. These balloons are stored > overhead in a basket, above the ground, at some particular chosen > height. The balloons obviously have potential energy, because they are > in the field of gravity. If we over turn the basket, the basket will > "discharge" the balloons, and they will fall down to the ground, at > some particular rate, accelerating first, then maybe reaching constant > velocity due to air resistance, or whatever. The point is that the > "discharge" of the upper potential energy is relatively orderly. And > this describes the electric field discharge situation for slow leaks. > > But, now, we fill the basket up with so many balloons, or put the basket > up so high, that when we "discharge" the balloons, some of them collide > into each other and get punctured, or simply rupture under the stress of > the greater resistance experienced owing to the higher speeds achieved > during the fall. When a balloon gets a "hole" in it, it behaves remarkably > different, now it releases "internal energy" and that causes it to "dart" > down to the ground with alot more vigor and force than we'd expect from > the falling balloon situation. However, we don't take into account that > extra "internal energy" in our model, so we can't explain why the balloons > discharge is so different this time, nor can we explain why it seems to have > so much more energy than we calculate from the gravitational potential. > > All because we never considered "hot" and "cold" balloons. We simply > thought of the energy of the "weight" above the ground at a particular > "height" and that is our "potential difference" which measures our > "field strength". > > Anyway, you should see the general idea from this simple gedanken demo. That's all well and good _if_ the situation here is analgous. I'll check. > As for longitudinal waves, here again, I didn't go looking for them, > but since the T is a scalar field, it obviously can't propagate in > "transverse" fashion. I feel obligied to point out that you have not yet cited an experiment which disagrees with Maxwell's theory (though these spark cases may be one, I doubt it) nor have you demonstrated that your theory gives a correct explanation (quantitative, not qualitative). > If you're interested in "longitudinal" waves, or scalar photons, I'd > suggest pg. 45 of "The Quantum Theory of Radiation" by W. Heitler, > 3rd ed. Dover Pub. Although the title says "Quantum", the first part > of the book is only about classical em. Hmm, it's been a long time since I look at Heitler. It's rather out of date. However I know that virtual scalar photons are possible in QED but _not_ as asymtotic states. And they most certainly cannot be interpreted as classical longitudinal waves. This is covered quite well in Mandel and Shaws book on quantum field theory. Incidentally if you want an introduction to Noether's theorem they do a pretty good job IIRC. ### jddescr...@my-deja.com unread, Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99 to In article <fL204.5706$PF1....@quark.idirect.com>,
"Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> jdescript wrote in message <11f733ec.4400b7f5@usw-ex0102-
016.remarq.com>...

> >
> >The Tesla power inventions [ you've heard of ac power
> >I hope ], the electric motor [ you've heard of the ac
> >motor I hope ] and the other grand inventions he made
> >aren't known to you because the monopoly that feeds your
> >ivory tower doesn't say TESLA. I repeat what I said to
> >Peter Jack;
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

of HS [Human Science] except the idea that it is somehow
God against the King's Men of Science [KMS]. This latter
concept is a little too abstract for me unless you mean
the good people [ GPs ] = free people versus the bad
people [ BPs ] = kingsmen. Tesla is definitely an
interesting case. He had to have freedom to think because
his approach was so different than anyone else but that
didn't mean that he believed in freedom for others and
consistently fought to overcome the KMS. In general he was
too busy building generators and spark transformers and
such to be much involved in politics. Einstein was a
similar case where even though he had to escape hitler
socialism he still considered himself to be a socialist.
In both cases their beliefs can be traced to upbringing in
socialist dictator societies and accepting the idea of
socialist manipulation (socman) of people. Incidentally, I
discovered that Tesla was the technology model for the Ayn
Rand's motor builder, John Galt, in the forecasting novel
Atlas Shrugged. I guess I care because his name is like
mine, John Descript (JD).

I think your Peter Jack law of resistance to change is very
important but you seem to be mixing several concepts. It's
like if you wrote out a Hamiltonian of a process but didn't
distinguish the parts giving rise to symmetric response and
antisymmetric response. Again it goes directly to morality.
There are good changes [reference free people] and there are
bad changes. The values are just inverted for the BPs {polar
opposites}. The natural dynamic you point to is also correct
and in my models I call it the KIS [KIng's Surprise]. The KMS
take over freedom and many go-along-to-get-along until there
is your explosion, a KIS, like we see so often in this
century of socialist takings and collapse (KIS).

Good seeing. JD

### Peter Jack

Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to

Matthew Nobes wrote in message ...

>
>Further I've yet to see a demonstration that _your_ theory is the one that
>explains the results. Or that the results have _anything_ to do with
>longitudinal waves.
>

The book is currently charged out of my library here, and I don't have notes
on it. But, I'll look when it gets back in. I looked at that book some time
ago,
and was led there by another reference which also deals with similar issues,
but I don't recall that ref. at the moment. However, I didn't have that
particularly
in mind when I went about developing my theory, I only considered
thermoelectricity,
a completely different topic all together.(but maybe all are now connected)

However, I can also see how my theory might explain the energy discrepancy

here
too, in the electric spark discharge. For, instead of E^2 + H^2, for the
energy in
a unit volume of the field, we should have T^2 + E^2 + H^2. And I note, that
according to Heitler the "idea" that E^2 + H^2 is the correct energy density
for
the em-field is a "postulate" not a derived result. It is "consistent" with
the
poynting vector E x H , another "postulate", in that together they can be
shown
to satisfy the law of conservation of energy and momentum.

But, as I recall, the spark discharge has been found to deliver "more"

energy
than can be explained by that which was originally in the field before
discharge.
It packs a bigger punch, so to speak, than you'd expect. It could very well
be
the same Lorentz force mentioned in the preface of that book. Since the
work done by the charges during discharge is just the Lorentz force on the
charges times the distance through which the charges are moved, i.e. the
length of the discharge arc. But not recalling the details at the moment,
nor
having the reference at hand, I'll defer discussion of this to later.
However,
the point I want to make here is that I can explain the "extra" energy,
because
my T says there is an energy component that is not being accounted for. And
depending on the circumstances, the error introduced by ignoring T is
greater
or smaller.

Look at it this way, suppose you have a number of heavy rubber balloons,

As for longitudinal waves, here again, I didn't go looking for them, but

since the T is a scalar field, it obviously can't propagate in "transverse"
fashion.

If you're interested in "longitudinal" waves, or scalar photons, I'd

### Peter Jack

Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to

jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<81sv0e$pu6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>In article <fL204.5706$PF1....@quark.idirect.com>, > "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> wrote: >> >> jdescript wrote in message <11f733ec.4400b7f5@usw-ex0102- >016.remarq.com>... >didn't mean that he believed in freedom for others and >consistently fought to overcome the KMS. In general he was >too busy building generators and spark transformers and >such to be much involved in politics. I think Tesla's opponents were more big business than KMS. At the time DC current generators and motors were all the rage, and alot had been invested in that technology. The change over to AC current generators and motors took alot of convincing. And even then, Tesla didn't get much benefit from this. He released Westinghouse from all debts to him in order to facilitate their profit and see his dream of AC power become a reality, and so died a poor man instead of a multi-millionaire. ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99 to Jos Bergervoet wrote in message <81r9ak$t67$2...@news.IAEhv.nl>... >In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > >>>> What is being conserved by gauge invariance? >>>Duh, electric charge. >> Duh? How about a proof? Or, at least a reference > >the idea is not new (in physics, we call them "Faddeev-Popov >ghosts" since the late sixties.) Well, that won't suprise me. I'll take a look at Weinberg's book. But, like I said, it's an unused cable that I've plugged into the wall and found use for. The problem with theoretical physicists is that they are constantly inventing new and exciting cables that nobody uses. And they don't come down from their ivory towers to the physics lab to talk to experimenters about their great new cables and plugs. And experimenters don't have the time to read all the wonderful new devises these symbol engineers produce. So, there is a divergence between theory and applications, and that continues. However, I'd be very interested in seeing the method used to arrive at the T field. So, I'll check. ### Matthew Nobes unread, Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99 to On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Peter Jack wrote: > > Jos Bergervoet wrote in message <81r9ak$t67$2...@news.IAEhv.nl>... > >In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > > > >>>> What is being conserved by gauge invariance? > >>>Duh, electric charge. > >> Duh? How about a proof? Or, at least a reference > > > >Hi Peter, > > > >I would advise Steven Weinberg, "The quantum theory of fields, > >part II" (Cambridge press, 1996). > > > >With a recent book like that, you'll be ahead of your oponents. > >It treats the non-abelian case, and you'll find many more > >"spilled" degrees of freedom (like your T field). > > > >You will be thrilled by Section 15.6, where the "ghost" and > >"anti-ghost" fields are introduced to deal with unobservable > >degrees of freedom. Of course you might be dissapointed that > >the idea is not new (in physics, we call them "Faddeev-Popov > >ghosts" since the late sixties.) > > > [snip some] > Then, in his "ghost" propagator the "gauge-fixing function" shows > up again. But, in my theory, the Temporal field appears directly > in maxwell's equations as a "current" term. Probably, this "ghost" > is the same (up to a sign) kind of thing in the more complicated > path integral approach. The interesting thing though, is the name > "ghost." I don't know what prompted them to name it that, but > it is consistent with my idea of "fire" in a mysterious way. Two points, 1) they're called ghosts because they are need for gauge fixing but are physically unobservable (they have no asymtotic states) which leads me to 2) The ghosts Weinberg is discussing cannot appear at the classical level for two reasons, the first is that they do not obey the spin-statistics theorem. The second is that they have no asymtotic states. > > We all know "ghosts" can posess human bodies, and animals, > etc, that is, the "spirit" of the living thing can take up residence > in "material" bodies, infusing their essence into the matter and > thus giving "life" to the physical form. Please count me out of "we all." > This "spirit" or "ghost" is > the "fire" of life, just as Jesus baptises with the "holy spirit" etc.. > And this is exactly what the "thermal energy" in the "temporal > field" represents. It's the "fire" that can impregnate the "fields" > from which matter is constructed. The synchronicity is amazing. > I'm sure, when the physicists thought of "ghost" they never intended > this connotation. No they did not. > Probably, it was just a suggestive name to > represent the unseen, untangible, unphysical element in the > essence of the quantum mechanical algebraic expression, > and had nothing to do with the spirit world. But, like it or not, > it does. Why? It's a term in the Lagrangian needed for proper gauge fixing. That's all, nothing more. Ruthermore you _can_ quantize in a guage that elminates the ghosts. They are artifcats of your guage fixing procedure, nothing more. This is very clear when you calculate one loop diagrams in QCD. And come to think of it, your theory is about E&M right? That's a U(1) gauge theory, there are no ghosts needed. > But, I don't think the physicists recognise this "ghost" for what > it really is as yet. It has a reality beyond the correction terms of > a qm calculation. Umm I hate to sound like a broken record but can you cite an experiment where a ghost particle has been observed? Oh ya, I picked up Newtonian Electrodynamics today, and took a more thorugh glance. I was right about the preface, but they go further in claiming that Maxwell's field equations break down in th case of a railgun. I don't think I beileive them, I also picked up some comments that some people wrote about their papers, and the critisims seem solid. It's going to require more time. They also explictly state that the Lorentz force breaks down in several situations and are rather disparaging of speical relativity in general. One more note: while not affecting the validity of their arguements I feel the need to express my doubt right off the bat. Three parts of their book immediatly caught my eye as what I would midly term "suspicious". Unsuprisingly all three were in their "new energy" section. The first is the following quote "The great number of papers published in the cold fusion area leaves little doubt that excess heat has been produced in a number of different experiments." The second is that they contiually disparage modern relativistic field theory throughout their book, yet at the end want to claim the QED vacuum may be a source of "new energy." Third they cite H. Puthoff. In my books that's a really really bad sign. ### Tom Roberts unread, Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99 to Peter Jack wrote: > Guage invariance never had anything to do with classical > electromagnetism. Herman Weyl introduced the idea of a "gauge" > change in 1918 in the context of Einstein's Relativity, and "tried" > to link it to the potential of electromagnetism, but his "gauge" > idea was shot down by Einstein because his particular construction > caused a "scale" change in the length of vectors moved from point > to point in the space, an idea inconsistent with the principle of > special relativity. You have confused two DIFFERENT aspects of Weyl's work, because the _ENGLISH_TRANSLATIONS_ of his words used to be the same. In particular, his gauge invariance of electromagnetism is still called gauge invariance. He coined the phrase, I believe ("Eichinvarianz" auf deutsch -- it is really a metaphor and not a literal phrase). But his words which were originally translated as "gauge transforms" in relativity are now called "conformal transforms" -- precisely to avoid the confusion you have, and to be consistent with the terminology mathematicians use. I believe that in German this confusion remains (but am not sure). Yes indeed, GR is not confomally invariant. And Weyl's attempts to unify GR with E&M using conformal transformations has not yielded a viable theory which is consistent with experiments. Remarkably, I just read about this last night, in _Introduction_to_the_Theory_of_Relativity_ by P.G.Bergmann (the very last section on unified field theories). Getting back to your first sentence above, gauge invariance was originally discovered and DEFINED for classical electromagnetism. Where do you think the terms like "Lorenz gauge" (etc.) come from? They were in use long before QM. Yes, that is Lorenz, not Lorentz. Two different physicists with rather similar names (one German, one Dutch; one rather obscure, one rather well known). And related to the subject of this thread: in an absorbtive medium there are indeed longitudinal components of E and H in an electromagnetic wave. But in vacuum or a perfectly-transparent medium they are 0. See (e.g.) Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_. A wave with such components cannot propagate over distances long compared to the absorbtion length of the medium. Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com ### Tom Roberts unread, Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99 to Tom Roberts wrote: > Yes indeed, GR is not confomally invariant. [...] I see I forgot to mention that GR is also gauge invariant. In this case the gauge invariance corresponds to the invariance of GR with respect to arbitrary coordinate transforms. That is, neither the value of any observable quantity nor the field equations themselves change if one applies an arbitrary transformation of coordinates. Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com ### jddescr...@my-deja.com unread, Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99 to In article <qqB04.11845$PF1....@quark.idirect.com>,

"Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote in message
> <81sv0e$pu6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <fL204.5706$PF1....@quark.idirect.com>, > > "Peter Jack" <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > >> > >> jdescript wrote in message <11f733ec.4400b7f5@usw-ex0102- > >016.remarq.com>... > > >didn't mean that he believed in freedom for others and > >consistently fought to overcome the KMS. In general he was > >too busy building generators and spark transformers and > >such to be much involved in politics. > > I think Tesla's opponents were more big business than KMS. > At the time DC current generators and motors were all the > rage, and alot had been invested in that technology. The > change over to AC current generators and motors took alot > of convincing. And even then, Tesla didn't get much benefit > from this. He released Westinghouse from all debts > to him in order to facilitate their profit and see his dream > of AC power become a reality, and so died a poor man > instead of a multi-millionaire. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Your point is well taken. In my models I use KMS to stand for the general King's Men Spirit [ from the concept King's MENtality ; the King's Men of Science are just a particular breed ] and of course that includes corpman [corporate manipulators]. In Tesla's original contracts he was supposed to get a profit from every horsepower of ac motor or generator produced in the world. How Westinghouse fell into allowing his family business to be a corp I don't know but this pact with the top KMS [no liability] is hard for anyone to resist. Objectively speaking I think Westinghouse {the whole operation is gone now => CBS} appreciated what Tesla did for the business in the best way he could. At that time it was still pretty much a trusted family business, capitalism with a small c. Tesla went to great efforts trying to protect his inventions [ SOUL = Self Ownership of yoUr Life ] with the whole patent process but even when it eventually sort of worked, like his radio invention being eventually accepted by law {after the technology had moved on}, it was always too little too late and thus the death in poverty. There are many lessons to learn from his life! ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99 to Jos Bergervoet wrote in message <81r9ak$t67$2...@news.IAEhv.nl>... >In sci.physics.electromag Peter Jack <p...@idirect.com> wrote: > >>>> What is being conserved by gauge invariance? >>>Duh, electric charge. >> Duh? How about a proof? Or, at least a reference > >Hi Peter, > >I would advise Steven Weinberg, "The quantum theory of fields, >part II" (Cambridge press, 1996). > >With a recent book like that, you'll be ahead of your oponents. >It treats the non-abelian case, and you'll find many more >"spilled" degrees of freedom (like your T field). > >You will be thrilled by Section 15.6, where the "ghost" and >"anti-ghost" fields are introduced to deal with unobservable >degrees of freedom. Of course you might be dissapointed that >the idea is not new (in physics, we call them "Faddeev-Popov >ghosts" since the late sixties.) > Now that I've had a chance to look at the book, I find these "ghosts" facinating. First, I note that what I call "Temporal Gauge" Weinberg calls the "Landau Gauge", (at least, in the diagonal metric representation) , and what I call the "Temporal Field" he refers to as just the "gauge-fixing function". There are a few minor differences, in that his metric (-,+,+,+) differes from mine, since I use quaternions, which yield (+,-,-,-). Moreover, my quaternion structure isn't exactly relativistivc, it's only comparable to the relativistic metric in the "real" part of the square quaternion. Nevertheless, the func. T = -1/c.dT/dt + div(A), can be thought of as equivalent, up to a possible sign, to the "gauge-fixing function." It looks the same, though the algebraic backgrounds are somewhat different. Then, in his "ghost" propagator the "gauge-fixing function" shows up again. But, in my theory, the Temporal field appears directly in maxwell's equations as a "current" term. Probably, this "ghost" is the same (up to a sign) kind of thing in the more complicated path integral approach. The interesting thing though, is the name "ghost." I don't know what prompted them to name it that, but it is consistent with my idea of "fire" in a mysterious way. We all know "ghosts" can posess human bodies, and animals, etc, that is, the "spirit" of the living thing can take up residence in "material" bodies, infusing their essence into the matter and thus giving "life" to the physical form. This "spirit" or "ghost" is the "fire" of life, just as Jesus baptises with the "holy spirit" etc.. And this is exactly what the "thermal energy" in the "temporal field" represents. It's the "fire" that can impregnate the "fields" from which matter is constructed. The synchronicity is amazing. I'm sure, when the physicists thought of "ghost" they never intended this connotation. Probably, it was just a suggestive name to represent the unseen, untangible, unphysical element in the essence of the quantum mechanical algebraic expression, and had nothing to do with the spirit world. But, like it or not, it does. But, I don't think the physicists recognise this "ghost" for what ### Peter Jack unread, Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99 to jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote in message <81vevj$jp0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... Tesla wasn't really into the American way of life. He went about the whole business of business in a half hearted manner. Most of his patents were not even written by him, but rather by his assistant. This becomes painfully obvious when you try to read the patents. Some look like so much noise. Sometimes, the assistent would file the patents without Tesla even reading what he'd wrote. So, you can't really say how Tesla himself would have presented the ideas. In general, Tesla didn't like to write things down, prefering to memorise everything he did. And his absolute focus on his inventions made it impossible for him to run a business or track and fight the legal battles of patent rights effectively. Nevertheless, there is another mystical law - the law of compensation It is not really true that Tesla went unrewarded, for his reward was the blossoming of his own talent within himself. A power to concieve of things beyond the imagination of most men developed within his own being, which he probably took with him to the hereafter, if you believe in that sort of thing. Tesla's reward was Tesla's self-development. And the universe doesn't usually reward the talented with external prizes that other men, who suffer from those internal lackings obtain instead. Rather, the rewards are distributed according to merit and value, in "helping" those who suffer lack and wants to fill their hunger. Westinghouse "distributed" the A.C. system to the world, and filled the hunger of the populace, but suffered lack in inventive genius, as required to concieve of such thigs as A.C. polyphase generators, but won merit from his efforts to deliver the technology, and was rewarded with material things. Tesla didn't get the external material things, but was rewarded with internal gifts, that cannot be bought with any amount of money. In the end, if there is another world out there, Tesla died the richer of the two. But, if this is the only world, then it's probably better to be rich. ### jddescr...@my-deja.com unread, Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99 to In article <bMI04.20130$PF1....@quark.idirect.com>,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently there is a correlation between the Peter
Jack Law of Compensation and a measure in my models
called HS [Happiness Spirit]. It is formed similar
to an Hamiltonian and contains both action and
potential parts. Imagine the excitment that Tesla
felt as he visualized better and better the
fundamental relations for the ac motor. Imagine his
joys as he saw the wonder of the audience when they
viewed his thermal healing and remote vehicle
control and particularly the spectacular displays
of high voltage discharges. Also, because of the
way the mind works he knew that we would be
enjoying his inventions some century later and with
even greater real fame in the future,to anticipate.

I guess the optimum situation is to be both
spiritually rich and materially rich but certainly
the former is most important. That is particularly
true today when there are so many king's men around
to steal all appreciable family business = free
people = capitalism (with a small c) production.
Incidentally, Tesla lived in large material luxury
during much of his long life in NYC hotels [when he
wasn't in the research settings]. By today's
counting he probably had many millions pass through
his hands but none stuck to the end. Maybe he knew
enough about the king's men of his day, like
roosevelt and tax taker rates close to 100%, that
he decided to spend it before they stole it. Have
you heard any details of his finances,like how he
was still able to pay the hotel bill at the end?

Good seeing. JD