# Longitudinal electromagnetic waves

29 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

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

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?).
>

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

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

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

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 -
> 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.

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

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
> > 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
> 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.

> 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

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

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