defining "force mediating particle" #62 New Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I need to define some more concepts in New Physics, for Old
Physics did a bad job of defining which their concepts were just ad
hoc on the spot defining in order to facilitate conversation but not
make clear or precise the physics underlying the phenomenon.

Already I started to define "mirror image" as coming from Coulomb's
law as meaning similar to fractal self-image, where the size is
immaterial but the shape remains the same. The proton+electron table
is a mirror image of the periodic table of elements. So mirror image
comes from the Coulomb law of Maxwell Equations in that we can see
that inverse square law is a "fractal
self image law". So self-image or mirror-image is defined in New
Physics as the Coulomb law of inverse square in that a small sphere is
identical to a larger sphere other than size or scale.

But now I need to define this often bandied about term of Old Physics
so that it is properly used in
New Physics. I need to focus on
(1) interaction particle or force mediating particle
or what some in Old Physics called a gluon.

I remember as a youngster in my 30s reading books about particle
physics and quantum mechanics and where a force is described like a
tennis match between
two players and what holds the players together is the ball that they
try to hit back and forth. So this was an analogy of force for quantum
mechanics that the tennis ball was the gluon or the interaction
particle and the tennis players would be the proton and electron and
the ball would be the photon.

I also remember what Faraday envisioned that a light
wave or photon was a "disturbance in the electromagnetic field".

Now how can one reconcile the analogy of tennis playing with the
photon as a gluon and yet Faraday
makes the analogy of a disturbance?

So here, in this post, I want to concentrate on making a precise
definition of "force mediating particle".

I do not like the term "interaction particle" or "gluon", because the
definition I end up with allows me to keep both the tennis ball
analogy and the Faraday analogy of the disturbance but it does not
allow me to keep
"interaction particle" nor "gluon" because they are misleading.

New Physics is about clarity and precision and above all, application
of Logic into physics. The worst handicap of the physicists before me
was that they lacked proper logic abilities, for they were witness to
rigid body rotation and could never see that it means we throw out
gravity and replace it with EM, nor could they see that if you have
Special Relativity, you cannot thence have a Doppler shift of light
waves. Any physicist can study physics and learn details, but it is a
special physicist that has logic and when confronted with details, can
make sense of what the real physics behind the phenomenon
is. Dirac had logic and John Bell had logic in addition to their
understanding of physics, but I see no other physicist of modern times
who is qualified to do physics.
The ones I see now a days are just parrots of Old Physics and lack the
logic to even see where Old Physics is wrong.

So New Physics rests on the Maxwell Equations as the axiom set of New
Physics. In other words, what that means is that we have to check into
the Maxwell Equations to see if a definition is allowed by the Maxwell
Equations. Can we get "interaction particle" or "gluon" out of Maxwell
Equations? Those two came from quark theory, especially the idea of a
glue in gluon. We cannot get those from the Maxwell Equations because
we cannot have gluon or interaction particle for a positive and
negative charge. However, in the Maxwell Equations we can get the
concept of "force mediating
particle" that will satisfy both the tennis ball analogy and
the Faraday disturbance analogy.

Consider the Ampere/Maxwell Law in that it requires three items or
entities, and a produced magnetic field requires a (1) current (2)
changing electric field (3) or both. So the Ampere/Maxwell Law is a
mirror image of
the idea that a proton and electron mediated by a photon, three items,
produces a assembled atom of hydrogen. So that we replace current with
electron, changing electric field with photon and both with proton.

Now we can get both the tennis analogy and the Faraday disturbance
analogy in that the changing electric field is the photon (as ball).
And we get the disturbance analogy as the changing or disturbed
electric field.

But can you see how the "interaction particle" or the
"gluon" are misfits for the interaction is counter to the
disturbance and the gluon is counter to the understanding of
disturbance.

So here I have precision defined "force mediating particle" as the
particle of EM force that is the changing
electric field or the displacement current in the Ampere/
Maxwell Law. And since the other two forces of physics
the strong-nuclear and weak-nuclear are also EM forces, (gravity is a
fiction force), then there is no need to look for a force mediating
particle for strong-nuclear
and weak-nuclear. The photon is the force mediating particle in
physics and the only other possible force mediating particle would be
the neutrino.

And that leaves us with the Neutrino and its role and function in
physics.

I said in a previous post that the photon was the force mediating
particle of the proton to electron, and that the neutrino was the
mediating particle between positron and electron. I maybe wrong on
that, in that it may come
about that the neutrino is the mediating particle between the proton
and positron and the electron, all three. Or the other possibility of
mediating particle for proton and
positron. I do not know which of those three possibilities
is the true one, if any.

So in these posts I needed to well define "mirror image"
and "force mediating particle" and the way I do it is going to the
Maxwell Equations for ultimate guidance.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

On Jan 3, 2:26 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I need to define some more concepts in New Physics, for Old
> Physics did a bad job of defining which their concepts were just ad
> hoc on the spot defining in order to facilitate conversation but not
> make clear or precise the physics underlying the phenomenon.
>
> Already I started to define "mirror image" as coming from Coulomb's
> law as meaning similar to fractal self-image, where the size is
> immaterial but the shape remains the same. The proton+electron table
> is a mirror image of the periodic table of elements. So mirror image
> comes from the Coulomb law of Maxwell Equations in that we can see
> that inverse square law is a "fractal
> self image law".

I don't believe that the conflict of Maxwell's equations has been
fully confessed by physicists. It is now a modern fact that the
electron does have a magnetic moment inherently, but Maxwell's
equations rely upon a raw charge which lacks magnetic qualities thus
developing magnetic field as motion of raw charge. This is actually
the motivation of the naming of 'spin' of the electron.

Further, the ability of physicists to provide a pure 'spin up' beam is
limited to an 85% purity the last I checked. The Stern-Gerlach notion
always was weak, and reviewing that experiment exposes that in fact a
smeared image exists, which was minimized by tweaking the aperture at
their convenience. In effect they were charged with proving the
existence of a pure spin concept and supposedly succeeded in this
endeavor, but here I note some fundamental criticisms that should
allow us to approach these problems as open.

Spacetime itself enters into the fold, and properties mu-naught and
epsilon-naught are granted to spacetime itself. That we are dealing
with a geometrical system cannot be ignored and that the geometry of
spacetime does in fact carry additional structure such that
electromagnetic effects can be attributed to spacetime itself should
not be ignored. Instead we witness an attachment in modernity to
isotropic space, but the details expose that we must deal with more
structure in a spacetime model. Let's just review the definition of
isotropic with a summary 'same in all directions' and we will have to
admit that electromagnetic effects are highly directed. Furthermore
the spacetime that I live in is in fact highly structured. I look left
and see a table. I look right and see a tree. The space that I live in
is not the same in all directions. This is how simple falsification
can be, but the ability of the human mind to challenge the teachings
of the past is suspect.

What shall we do? Remove all objects from spacetime in order to
develop an isotropic space that satisfies modern theory? I am sorry,
but this farce cannot stand.

It is clear that we do need a grand shuffle, and I suspect that
thinking such as yours should arrive, so I stick these inconvenient
thoughts under your nose. Discrete spacetime models will not suffice
so far as I can tell, and so a clean address of continuous/discrete
concepts must be considered.

If you are making a particle theory that lacks a medium then you
should address this. If not, then these problems are appropriate to
consider IMNSHO.

- Tim

> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 3, 9:19 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You are not putting anything under my nose. You are weak in physics
but far weaker
in mathematics.

In mathematics we start out with a axiom system, and see how far it
carries us. If it leads to bad conclusions (theorems) then we go back
and adjust the axioms.

In your above, silly complaints, your own axiom system is not the
Maxwell Eq but your own whim and fancy and some of your own personal
idealisms injected into physics.

In short, you have no starting axiom system for physics and so you are
not really allowed to open your mouth about physics.

Now I start out with the Maxwell Equations as the axiom set of
physics, and so far they have been able to describe and analyze all
the forces and definitions. But that does not mean that I may run into
a problem down the road about say, charge or magnetism. If I do, then,
I look more closely at the Maxwell Equations.

So my advice to you is that you know so little about physics and so
very little about how logical thinking and mathematics works that you
should spend more time in
learning physics and math rather than give your silly illogical
ruminations.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 3, 1:05 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:19 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

Perhaps I was too rough on the above poster, too rough on his
arrogance.

But let me add some consolation to the poster. In that he is far ahead
in
wisdom on physics than is Leon Lederman, Steven Weinberg, Peter Higgs,
Lisa Randall, Brian Greene, Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking who are
thoroughly lost
in the weeds of delusion of physics and will not even consider their
silly
beliefs. At least the poster above sees room for correction in physics
whereas
those physicists listed keep following their fake and crank physics.
The
above listed persons cannot even tell that rigid body rotation means
EM force
and not gravity. Nor can that list of persons ever realize that the
muon is merely a high energy electron and not a independent particle.

I seriously doubt that any of those persons in that list was ever a
mathematician
and could do mathematics as doing physics, and would explain why they
have no or little logical reasoning in their physics arguments.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 3, 9:19 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 3, 2:26 am, Archimedes Plutonium

>

> If you are making a particle theory that lacks a medium then you
> should address this. If not, then these problems are appropriate to
> consider IMNSHO.
>
>  - Tim
>

Tim, sorry I was rude to you, partly brought on by my malfunctioning
internet account
that does not allow me to read posts leisurely, but that is a long
story.

I hope you can shed some light on the questions.

I do have a medium in the Maxwell Equations for waves, so I have an
aether. The aether
is one or the other of the fields, whether it is a magnetic field or a
electric field. So the aether
that Michelson would be happy with was one or the other of the fields.
So the Lumeniferous
Aether is either the electric field or the magnetic field, depending
on which of the two fields
you focus on. This is far better than saying that a wave in physics
needs no medium to traverse in.

And this aether would better explain the Double Slit Experiment.

But Tim, I was wanting to ask you a question about Majorana particles,
for it is the first time I come across this subject. Do you know about
Majorana particles?

What I am thinking is that the antineutrino is a fiction and does not
exist, just as there are no
antiphotons.

In the reaction:

AntiNeutrino + Proton --> Neutron + Positron

I suspect that reaction is the only experimental evidence we have of
saying the antineutrino exists in Nature. But there is immense
problems with that for the reaction is the same as this:

Proton --> Neutron + Positron + Neutrino

In other words, we never need antineutrinos in any equation of a
reaction for we simply put the neutrino on the other side of the
equation and thus antineutrinos are never needed.

Tim, can you think of a single experiment in physics that is a proof
of the existence of the antineutrino? I cannot.

Tim, do you know of this Majorana identity of neutrinos? I read
somewhere where an experiment was underway to see if the antineutrino
was nonexistent.

Finally, could the fact that antineutrinos are nonexistent play some
role in the recent CERN report of superluminal neutrinos? Could it be
that they are plugging into their speeds that of the antineutrino when
in fact it is only the neutrinos speed they are measuring? So could a
CERN
experiment with antineutrinos skew the data for speeds, when it is the
neutrino speed they should
be looking for?

Archimedes Plutonium

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

On Jan 4, 1:28 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:19 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 2:26 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> > If you are making a particle theory that lacks a medium then you
> > should address this. If not, then these problems are appropriate to
> > consider IMNSHO.
>
> >  - Tim
>
> Tim, sorry I was rude to you, partly brought on by my malfunctioning
> internet account
> that does not allow me to read posts leisurely, but that is a long
> story.

It's no problem. I don't really have a strong opinion on the
(anti)neutrino concept that you are working on and don't have time
right now to dig.

I think that my own criticisms are more generic. I am tempted to
challenge the usage of 'interaction particles' altogether. By granting
more quality to the spacetime basis I suspect that Maxwell's equations
may be simplified, and that a few additional surprises could creep in.
You see, if the spacetime basis rises in complexity then some of the
complexity of the particle models may be alleviated.

Suppose for instance that spacetime itself includes the qualities
which support particle stability. This would be a huge win. The
particle physicists don't seem to trouble so much over why their
particles (such as the electron) are stable. Especially so long as
wave functions are in use then the possibility that stability could be
derived rather than granted then you theory will have longevity. Let's
not forget that standard waves actually dissipate, and I have yet to
see any discussion as to why their wave functions fail to dissipate.

I've thought about this a little bit recently, and we could consider
an
explosion/implosion
paradigm in terms of waves. Explosive waves would be those which
dissipate, whereas implosive waves will maintain locality. This is
just a primitive means which does require further development. It
seems to me that this sort of mechanism can be played with in terms of
the photon and electron. When an electron absorbs a photon then we
would be considering an interaction that goes unscrutinized within the
standard model. According to them this is simply a discrete fact which
goes as a basic assumption to their theory.

Does a free electron (one travelling through a vacuum as in a vacuum
tube) interact with light? Or must the electron be engaged in an
atomic structure in order to take this interaction? It seems that the
electron must be an atomic one if we use the usual orbital jump model,
whereby the electron is sensitive to particular wavelengths of emag
radiation. Regardless, we see little literature on a theoretical
mechanism of this interaction.

I am sure that I do deserve to be educated here. If the electron is an
implosive well which balances with the implosive well of a proton to
form a hydrogen atom then how do those discrete states occur? Here the
wave functions must come into the fold, but lets not confuse these
waves with ordinary waves. There should be some math that begets these
stabilities.

- Tim

> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 4, 9:20 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 4, 1:28 am, Archimedes Plutonium

>

> > Tim, sorry I was rude to you, partly brought on by my malfunctioning
> > internet account
> > that does not allow me to read posts leisurely, but that is a long
> > story.
>
> It's no problem. I don't really have a strong opinion on the
> (anti)neutrino concept that you are working on and don't have time
> right now to dig.
>
> I think that my own criticisms are more generic. I am tempted to
> challenge the usage of 'interaction particles' altogether. By granting

Yes, I use the term "force mediating particle" but
some like the term "interaction particle"

One of the reasons I like this idea of Axioms of Physics, where Newton
used his 3 laws, and instead, I use the entire set of Maxwell
Equations is that I can point inside the Maxwell Equations and say
Faraday's law defines
interaction particle because photons exists in Faraday's law as a
disturbance of the electromagnetic field, and thus I need not go any
deeper or further, because they are axioms. Axioms end all digging
deeper. In geometry,
points and lines are axioms and so that stops us from
having to wrestle any deeper.

And maybe Physics never realized that Newton made his three laws as
axioms in 1687 with his Principia.

Funny how the Physics community never realized that
by 2011, they were still working and using the Newton
three laws as their axiom set and that they should have spent a lot of
time replacing that axiom set. And probably a fair criticism of how
poorly the Standard Model has become because it is a cobbled together
theory with no clear axioms to ground itself.

By making the Maxwell Equation the new axioms of Physics, we can begin
to precision define most of the terms of Quantum Mechanics, and I am
optimistic that we can unify the forces and make the particle physics
as
comprehensive as the periodic table of elements are comprehensive.

> more quality to the spacetime basis I suspect that Maxwell's equations
> may be simplified, and that a few additional surprises could creep in.
> You see, if the spacetime basis rises in complexity then some of the
> complexity of the particle models may be alleviated.
>

With the Maxwell Equations as axioms, I would go the opposite
direction and use the Equations to shed light on such geometrical
features as whether 4th dimension
or higher can exist.

The Maxwell Equations as axiom set for physics
and mathematics would be an additional proof that
the dimensions of the Universe are only 3 dimensions
and no more.

I am going to have to re-examine these two sources:
 "Quarks,atoms,and the 1/N expansion" by Edward Witten, Physics Today
July1980. 
 "Large-N quantum mechanics and classical limits" by
Laurence 
Yaffe 
Physics Today Aug1983. 
I posted those sources in the
early 1990s. And the argument was that 
some experiments 
had been
executed and if the results turned one way, 
then 4th 
dimension and
higher would lead 
to Newtonian Mechanics. 
Since quantum mechanics
was the true physics 
and not Newtonian 
mechanics, implied from that
experiment that only the 1st, 2nd and 
3rd 
dimensions existed and
that 4th and higher were simply 
nonexistent.
Now I think, but can easily be wrong, in that the Maxwell
Equations can only work in 3rd dimension, no 4th or higher dimension
can those equations work. That would be an additional proof that 3rd
dimension is the only dimension of the physical world.

> Suppose for instance that spacetime itself includes the qualities
> which support particle stability. This would be a huge win. The
> particle physicists don't seem to trouble so much over why their
> particles (such as the electron) are stable. Especially so long as

I guess the concept of stability is very important and that
the four particles I have in mind to cover all of Physics--
proton, electron, photon, positron have the feature of
stability whereas others decay into one of those four.

Tim, so does the Maxwell Equations (ME) elucidate the concept of
"stability"? I guess since charge of positive
and negative and neutral are in the ME then proton,
electron, photon are stable and so is the positron, even though it is
an antielectron. With ME as axioms, I only
need a indication or sign that "stability" exists in ME.

> wave functions are in use then the possibility that stability could be
> derived rather than granted then you theory will have longevity. Let's
> not forget that standard waves actually dissipate, and I have yet to

Interesting, the concept of dissipation of waves. Is it in the Maxwell
Equations (ME)? I do not think so, for it is
equivalent to saying that the electron eventually falls into
the proton and loses its quantum orbit. Or like saying that charge +1
eventually dissipates into +0.9998. So I do not think there is
dissipation of waves in ME.

> see any discussion as to why their wave functions fail to dissipate.
>
> I've thought about this a little bit recently, and we could consider
> an
>    explosion/implosion
> paradigm in terms of waves. Explosive waves would be those which
> dissipate, whereas implosive waves will maintain locality. This is
> just a primitive means which does require further development. It
> seems to me that this sort of mechanism can be played with in terms of
> the photon and electron. When an electron absorbs a photon then we
> would be considering an interaction that goes unscrutinized within the
> standard model. According to them this is simply a discrete fact which

I do not like the Standard Model either, and by making the Maxwell
Equations as axioms we need go no deeper than the ME.

> goes as a basic assumption to their theory.
>
> Does a free electron (one travelling through a vacuum as in a vacuum
> tube) interact with light? Or must the electron be engaged in an
> atomic structure in order to take this interaction? It

I don't think you are asking me these questions and
I have too many of my own questions to hunt down,
but if pressed to answer, I would think that since I made
the Maxwell Equations the axiom set, that the questions
cannot be answerable, since it is a probing beyond the
Maxwell Equations themselves. The point axiom in geometry is that-- a
point exists and we cannot go further or deeper into a "subpoint" and
then a subsubpoint. But the Standard Model never gave itself a axiom
set, and so for Standard Model physicists, they
were never happy with points such as proton, electron
and had to dive deeper with their subpoint of quarks and they dive
even deeper with subsubpoints of strings.

In geometry, way back in Euclid's Ancient Greek times
they seemed to have more common sense and realized that a point was an
axiom that forbids deeper understanding and how silly it would be to
have a subpoint and more silly yet having a subsubpoint.

> electron must be an atomic one if we use the usual orbital jump model,
> whereby the electron is sensitive to particular wavelengths of emag
> radiation. Regardless, we see little literature on a theoretical
> mechanism of this interaction.
>
> I am sure that I do deserve to be educated here. If the electron is an
> implosive well which balances with the implosive well of a proton to
> form a hydrogen atom then how do those discrete states occur? Here the
> wave functions must come into the fold, but lets not confuse these
> waves with ordinary waves. There should be some math that begets these
> stabilities.
>
>  - Tim

I am becoming more convinced that the antiproton does not exist, even
though it is
reported of constructing antihydrogen atoms. I think what researchers
are seeing are some tau like particles rather than a negative charged
antiproton.
--- quoting from Wikipedia on antiproton ---
This is significantly more stringent than the best laboratory
measurements of the antiproton lifetime:
▪ LEAR collaboration at CERN: 0.08 yr
▪ Antihydrogen Penning trap of Gabrielse et al.: 0.28 yr[3]
▪ APEX collaboration at Fermilab: 50,000 yr for p → μ−
+ anything
▪ APEX collaboration at Fermilab: 300,000 yr for p → e−
+ γ
The magnitude of properties of the antiproton are predicted by CPT
symmetry to be exactly related to those of the proton. In particular,
CPT symmetry predicts the mass and lifetime of the antiproton to be
the same as those of the proton, and the electric charge and magnetic
moment of the antiproton to be opposite in sign and equal in magnitude
to those of the proton. CPT symmetry is a basic consequence of quantum
field theory and no violations of it have ever been detected.
--- end quoting ---

There probably has been no experiment that actually proves the
antiproton exists
rather than being some huge lepton like a tau particle, which the
researchers
have confused as being a antiproton, and a closer look at antihydrogen
atom claims.

Archimedes Plutonium

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

On Jan 5, 3:01 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:20 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I think that my own criticisms are more generic. I am tempted to
> > challenge the usage of 'interaction particles' altogether. By granting
>
> Yes, I use the term "force mediating particle" but
> some like the term "interaction particle"
>
> One of the reasons I like this idea of Axioms of Physics, where Newton
> used his 3 laws, and instead, I use the entire set of Maxwell
> Equations is that I can point inside the Maxwell Equations and say
> Faraday's law defines
> interaction particle because photons exists in Faraday's law as a
> disturbance of the electromagnetic field, and thus I need not go any
> deeper or further, because they are axioms. Axioms end all digging
> deeper. In geometry,
> points and lines are axioms and so that stops us from
> having to wrestle any deeper.

This is great stuff here Archimedes. I have a collection of books on
electromagnetics including a reprint of some of Maxwell's works.
Magnetism itself has a long laundry list of terminology that does not
absorb well. I am willing to consider emag as open to new formulations
and work on one within the polysign number context.

The problem of the raw charge remains a conflict. What Maxwell
pondered was the inseparability of charge and magnetism to the point
of realizing that light is itself an interplay of these two concepts,
but we do still require the terms electric and magnetic as separate
concepts. Finally he manages to express the two in terms of one; raw
charge; the other being a result of the motion of raw charge, which
fits the electron, until we consider the magnetic moment of the
electron. Now we have the two theories on top of each other with
nobody screaming 'foul'. In my own education there was never any
criticism along these lines and we were trained to believe that MEs
were perfect, and thanks to an excellent teacher (Nahin) even that
Heaviside is responsible for the modern form. He even named his cat
after the guy, and has written books on time travel and so forth. Talk
about taking your freedom...

Your approach on axiomatic thinking is fair, but what about spacetime?
Yes, you are going into dimensional analysis, and I caution you that
the very term 'dimensional' is tied to the real number, and whether
the real number itself is fundamental or not could be the breaking
point of modern physics. Well, this era is about 400 years old now,
but by bringing spacetime into the fold some very serious criticism
can be laid down. I ask that you again consider isotropic space;
isotropic spacetime; unified spacetime. I suggest that spacetime is in
fact structured and that this is antithetical to the isotropic
assumption, and that this approach will require quite some shuffling
deep down in the guts.

I also readily admit that the experimental physicists have the upper
hand on the theoretical. Just look at all of the modern effects that
theory must absorb and it should be readily evident that the basis
will require tremendous dynamics. There is one inconvenient
experimental fact which is inserted into all theory to date: the three
dimensional space assumption is an experimental fact which still lacks
a theory. I do not see that your own analysis can be valid since
Maxwell's work presupposes x,y,z workspace in which he makes his
equations, and his original work did literally use x,y,z coordinates.
Thus his theory rests upon an empirical basis, and such theory is
inherently compromised.

Polysign promises arithmetic spacetime support with unidirectional
time, but I still have not gotten out anything like Maxwell's
equation's. The dynamics sit there in the structure, and higher
dimensional effects with tremendous dynamics can be present while
still holding the spacetime support. I do not mean to bog down our
conversation with these details but do see that your own awareness is
nearby. Please consider the simplistic definition of 'isotropic' and
you may see a crack in the foundation of modern physics.

- Tim

> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Subject: Lenz's law independent of Maxwell Eq?? does the antiproton
really exist? #74 New Physics


On Jan 5, 8:09 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 5, 3:01 am, Archimedes Plutonium

(snipped in places)

>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 9:20 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I think that my own criticisms are more generic. I am tempted to
> > > challenge the usage of 'interaction particles' altogether. By granting
>
> > Yes, I use the term "force mediating particle" but
> > some like the term "interaction particle"
>
> > One of the reasons I like this idea of Axioms of Physics, where Newton
> > used his 3 laws, and instead, I use the entire set of Maxwell
> > Equations is that I can point inside the Maxwell Equations and say
> > Faraday's law defines
> > interaction particle because photons exists in Faraday's law as a
> > disturbance of the electromagnetic field, and thus I need not go any
> > deeper or further, because they are axioms. Axioms end all digging
> > deeper. In geometry,
> > points and lines are axioms and so that stops us from
> > having to wrestle any deeper.
>
> This is great stuff here Archimedes. I have a collection of books on
> electromagnetics including a reprint of some of Maxwell's works.
> Magnetism itself has a long laundry list of terminology that does not
> absorb well. I am willing to consider emag as open to new formulations
> and work on one within the polysign number context.
>

Hi Tim, thanks for your posts, because they give me
an alternative view or they give me alternative focal
points. I do not know about "polysign" so I cannot be
of use there. I am strictly trying to make the Maxwell
Equations more precise and then to have them act
as the axioms of all of physics (thus, all of mathematics
also). When accomplishing that, the particles of physics and the
forces of physics should then be well understood.

With the problem of whether the antiproton exists or does not exist,
and whether it is a energetic tau particle that researchers are
witnessing and not an antiproton.

Occam's Razor of Logic would say that since there are 4 Equations of
Maxwell, then there should be only 4 fundamental independent
particles, proton, electron, photon, positron. So I have a problem
there. Are there actually 5 Maxwell Equations and not 4, so that the
fundamental particles in physics is 5 also?

This morning I awoke with Lenz's law blaring in my mind. It is the
Conservation of Energy writ in EM.
Lenz's Law: An induced current in a closed conducting
loop will appear in such a direction that it opposes the change that
produced it.

Tim, in mathematics, we build axioms until that set of axioms can
explain all the phenomenon pertinent to the axioms. The 4 Maxwell
Equations are independent of one another and thus required. But a
mathematician would ask, can you derive Lenz's law out of those 4
given axioms and the answer is no, and that Lenz's law
is independent of the 4 given equations. That means
that Maxwell Equations require, actually 5 equations to be descriptive
of EM phenomenon. The negative sign in
Faraday's Law is hinting of Lenz's law but that we need to add on the
Lenz's law into the other 4 Maxwell Equations and hence the Maxwell
Equations now has 5
laws, 5 equations.

That allows me to logically say that the List of all particles that
are independent particles of Physics includes --- Proton, Electron,
Photon, Antiproton, Antielectron.

Now it may occur that I am wrong in the above and that Lenz's Law can
be derived out of the other 4, for I have not spent much time on this.
If that is the case that Lenz's law is shown to be a derivative of say
the Faraday law and the Ampere/Maxwell law, then I am back to 4
Maxwell Equations. However, I would then
reply back that we need to include the Dirac Equation itself as the
5th law and 5th equation of the Maxwell Equations.
Tim, are you good at manipulation of the Maxwell Equations to see if
Lenz's law is derivative or whether
it is independent?

The nice thing about replacing the axioms of physics of
Newton's three laws with that of the Maxwell Equations is that it will
answer most every one of these questions about spacetime versus charge
and particles.

Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Looking around today, I am at a conclusion that Lenz's law is
independent of the Maxwell Equations, especially Faraday's law.

So I deem that Lenz's law needs to be added to the Maxwell Equations
and that we have thus 5 equations and not just 4.

Lenz's law is the conservation of energy but also the Newton's 3rd law
that a action has an equal and opposite reaction. So it is rather
nice to see that action and equal reaction is a equivalent statement
of
conservation of energy. But more important, the Maxwell Equations as
of
4 equations is lacking of the ability to give us conservation of
energy
unless we tack on the 5th equation of Lenz's law.

If Lenz's law were derivative of the Maxwell equations we could have
dropped
it from physics education a long time ago, but we cannot derive Lenz's
law
from the 4 Maxwell Equations, we have to insert it as an axiom itself.
Unless
I made some mistake, I think mathematicians would agree with me that
Lenz's
law is independent of the other 4 laws.

P.S. an off topic comment, in that today I tried a new fruit,
completely unknown
to me before, called a "Meyer lemon" which is a cross between a lemon
and a tangerine, sweeter than a lemon and more sour than a tangerine,
a beautiful fruit.
I hope we can keep crossing the fruits and develop new fruits. In one
sense, biology genetics is similar to particle physics in that there
are distinct independent fruits and others are crosses or derivatives
of these independent fruits. So that a neutrino is a derivative of the
photon and a muon and tau are just derivatives of electrons. The
Standard Model is a crummy theory that cannot
understand the difference between independent and derivative.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

whole entire Universe is just one big atom

where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 5, 10:02 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking around today, I am at a conclusion that Lenz's law is
> independent of the Maxwell Equations, especially Faraday's law.
>
> So I deem that Lenz's law needs to be added to the Maxwell Equations
> and that we have thus 5 equations and not just 4.
>
> Lenz's law is the conservation of energy but also the Newton's 3rd law
> that a action has an equal and opposite reaction. So it is rather
> nice to see that action and equal reaction is a equivalent statement
> of
> conservation of energy. But more important, the Maxwell Equations as
> of
> 4 equations is lacking of the ability to give us conservation of
> energy
> unless we tack on the 5th equation of Lenz's law.
>
> If Lenz's law were derivative of the Maxwell equations we could have
> dropped
> it from physics education a long time ago, but we cannot derive Lenz's
> law
> from the 4 Maxwell Equations, we have to insert it as an axiom itself.
> Unless
> I made some mistake, I think mathematicians would agree with me that
> Lenz's
> law is independent of the other 4 laws.
>

Now if we add on the Lenz Law as the 5th Maxwell Equation, will it
then
resolve this peculiar phenomenon as pointed out by Feynman?

--- quoting Feynman ---
So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of
change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the
flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves
(or both).... Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two
completely distinct laws for the two cases  –     for "circuit moves"
and     for "field changes".
We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate
general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in
terms of two different phenomena.

— Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
--- end quoting ---

I am not sure, if it resolves that peculiar oddity of the Faraday Law,
for if we include Lenz's law, whether that two phenomenon now becomes
singular separate phenomenon, and that the Maxwell Equations without
Lenz's law was just too general, caused by the missing of the Lenz's
law.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 5, 10:14 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Alright, I see that Feynman calls Lenz's Law as a "rule" rather than
law.

But I seem to vaguely remember some other author/s also call it less
than a
law, something akin to Ohm's law as not a law, but that was perhaps so
long
ago that I am mistaken.

So why would Feynman call it a "rule" and not a law.

I think that most physicists of Feynman's generation saw that the
negative
sign in Faraday's law, looks like it addresses or covers the gist of
the Lenz's
law. But Feynman and his generation were not picky enough, were not as
picky
as what a mathematician is picky. A mathematician would look at
Faraday's law
and the other laws of the Maxwell Equations and say that the Faraday
law conforms
to Lenz's law, but if we made the Maxwell Equations as axioms, that
those 4 laws could not really derive Lenz's law outright, and that
means that the Lenz's law
has to be added or included into the Maxwell Equations to "complete
the equations"
to describe electricity and magnetism.

So in the case of Faraday's law, it hints of Lenz's law with its
negative sign, but
we still need to include Lenz's law as the 5th Maxwell Equation. And
this makes sense with the Conservation of Energy principle of physics.
For we cannot get that
conservation of energy out of the 4 Maxwell Equations, but we can if
we included
Lenz's Law as the 5th Maxwell Equation.

I am getting more and more confident that Lenz's Law needs to be
included into the Maxwell Equations as the 5th equation.

But I do not know if we have to include Dirac's Equation as the 6th
Maxwell Equation. I am puzzled about that, because the Dirac Equation
is really about EM on a individual atom, whereas the Maxwell Equations
are about EM of multi atoms. So here the question is whether the
Maxwell Equations is the Dirac Equation on a large scale, and whether
the Dirac Equation is the Maxwell Equations on a micro scale? So that
the Maxwell Equations are a consolidation of a large scale Dirac
Equation. Something that looks like this:

Maxwell Equations = Dirac Equation

Where the two are equal and only different because of scale.

Or, an alternative is that the Dirac Equation is an independent
Equation of the Maxwell Equations and that the Dirac Equation needs to
be included as a 6th Maxwell
Equation.

I need to investigate, still, whether the antiproton exists or whether
that is a energetic tau particle. I need to find out if the Dirac
Equation predicted the antiproton, as it predicted the antielectron.

But a lot of progress has already been made.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>> I am not sure, if it resolves that peculiar oddity of the Faraday Law,
>> for if we include Lenz's law, whether that two phenomenon now becomes
>> singular separate phenomenon, and that the Maxwell Equations without
>> Lenz's law was just too general, caused by the missing of the Lenz's
>> law.

> Alright, I see that Feynman calls Lenz's Law as a "rule" rather than
> law.

It seems that the wikipedia page is under Lenz's law, but rule seems
a better choice to me. Similar to rule of thumb, it helps in many
situations but the physics works without it.

> But I seem to vaguely remember some other author/s also call it less
> than a law, something akin to Ohm's law as not a law, but that was
> perhaps so long ago that I am mistaken.

> So why would Feynman call it a "rule" and not a law.

Pretty much what it does is gives a direction to time in which energy
of a system is lost to heat. Many physical laws don't require that,
but the fact that positive resistors are much more common than negative
resistors leads to this rule.

If the system allows for negative resistance (which require a power
source) then you can't use this rule.

There used to be (maybe still is) a toy with a little top and a stand
to spin it on, such that the top, once started, will keep spinning.

Underneath is a coil, transistor, and battery designed to generate a
magnetic field in the opposite of the one Lenz's law indicates.

When a voltage is induced into the coil from a magnet in the top,
the transistor turns on to supply a current opposite to the current
that a resistor would provide, such that the top spins faster.
(At least long enough, and often enough, to keep the top going.
There is no power switch, the transistor is off until a voltage
is induced in the coil.)

In a big calculation, it is easy to forget the signs on current and
voltage. For a dissipative system, Lenz's rule helps. If you don't
forget the signs, Maxwell will give you the right answer.

-- glen

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 6, 4:42 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

Hi Glen, thanks for the information. I do have that toy, in a box
which
I have stored somewhere I had forgotten where. If my memory is correct
it was called the "Levitron" and quite heavy for such a little toy.

I realize axioms used in mathematics are different, then if physicists
are given axioms, because physicists are not used to the idea that
axioms are there and how to use them. In physics, axioms can be
thought
of as "principles" as contrasted to laws. What I am trying to say is
that
the Maxwell Equations of its 4 equations are inadequate. That Lenz's
law
cannot be derived from those 4 and that doing experiments and seeing
that
Lenz's law appears is not proper. The Monopole law is seldom used but
it is
essential as a equation, in contrast, the Lenz law is often used and
although the
negative sign in the Faraday law hints of the Lenz law, the Lenz law
is as fundamental
as a 5th Maxwell Equation as is the Monopole law. What I am trying to
say is that
physicists are not used to knowing when their set of equations is a
complete set. To
a mathematician that constantly works with axiomatic sets, they
recognize when they
have an inadequate set of axioms and need additional ones to make
their subject
"complete". In the case of the Maxwell Equations of the 4 equations,
they are incomplete
and need that Lenz law of a 5th equation to complete the Maxwell
Equations.

If we never knew what the direction of the current was, and had only
the 4 Maxwell Equations
in front of us, and not allowed to do any experiments, would we be
able to anticipate and then
derive the Lenz law from the 4 equations? I think not, even though
Faraday's Law hints of what
the direction is. So if a mathematician was dealing with the Maxwell
Equations and could not experiment, but only guess what the direction
is from the 4 equations, he could not be certain
unless he actually did the experiments and verified that Lenz's Law is
true.

So that is what I mean by being derived from the 4 or independent of
the 4. I believe Lenz's
law is independent of the 4, and thus needs to be the 5th Maxwell
Equation.
Lenz law

Glen, can you tell me where and how many times the Lenz law goes into
action, goes into effect in the Ampere/Maxwell Law? Does it go into
effect twice or once?
So if Lenz's law goes into effect once in the Faraday law and twice in
the Ampere/Maxwell law,
then it is quite apparent that the Maxwell Equations are inadequate
without this 5th equation of
the Lenz's law.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:

(big snip)

> I realize axioms used in mathematics are different, then if physicists
> are given axioms, because physicists are not used to the idea that
> axioms are there and how to use them. In physics, axioms can be
> thought of as "principles" as contrasted to laws. What I am trying
> to say is that the Maxwell Equations of its 4 equations are
> inadequate. That Lenz's law cannot be derived from those 4 and that
> doing experiments and seeing that Lenz's law appears is not proper.

There was a recent PBS series, I believe part of NOVA, on time reversal.
That the laws of physics are symmetric in time. As you note,
Maxwell's equations work just as well with either sign of time.

In mechanics, it is friction that determines the sign of time, and
here it is dissipation. Currents in resistors, or resistive materials,
dissipate electromagnetic energy and turn it into heat. The reverse
process doesn't tend to happen, following the second law of
thermodynamics, but Maxwell doesn't disallow it.

So, Lenz's law is really just a different form of the second law
of thermodynamics. It is an a form useful for solving homework
problems, assuming that no negative resistors are around. (or other
active devices that look to the system in question like a negative
resistor.)

-- glen

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/6/2012 3:00 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (big snip)
>> I realize axioms used in mathematics are different, then if physicists
>> are given axioms, because physicists are not used to the idea that
>> axioms are there and how to use them. In physics, axioms can be
>> thought of as "principles" as contrasted to laws. What I am trying
>> to say is that the Maxwell Equations of its 4 equations are
>> inadequate. That Lenz's law cannot be derived from those 4 and that
>> doing experiments and seeing that Lenz's law appears is not proper.
>
> There was a recent PBS series, I believe part of NOVA, on time reversal.

What does it have to do with Lenz's law? Isn't that just
talking about the induced E-field by changes in B?

> That the laws of physics are symmetric in time. As you note,
> Maxwell's equations work just as well with either sign of time.
>
> In mechanics, it is friction that determines the sign of time, and
> here it is dissipation.

This is incorrect. If you include all interacting parts
of a system then there is no dissipation in the sense of
energy loss. Energy is then conserved. Entropy might still
increase, but also that is not certain, if it already is
maximized it will remain constant (and then it will not
help you to define the sign of time).

> Currents in resistors, or resistive materials,
> dissipate electromagnetic energy and turn it into heat.
> The reverse process doesn't tend to happen,

Yes it does! If you put a resistor above a flame, you can
extract the electric signal. Open voltage will be sqrt(4kTB)
with B the cut-off frequency of the thermal noise spectrum
for that temperature T (i.e. B ~ kT/h, with Planck's h).

If you heat up an incandescent lamp filament to 3000K by
external heat source and collect all noise coming out you
might get about 10 microWatt! (But you than have to collect
all frequencies up to about 300 THz; the cut-off frequency
thermal noise is then in the visible range..

--
Jos

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 6, 8:00 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

Thanks Glen, wow, I was not expecting Lenz's law as the 2nd law of
thermodynamics.

That sure would be fantastic if the Maxwell Equations, when properly
written and
fully complete unifies thermodynamics with the rest of physics.

I realize that Maxwell and Faraday did not have the subatomic
particles let alone
have the atomic theory of quantum mechanics. So that in an attempt to
mathematize
Lenz's law as a 5th Maxwell Equation, may require a radical new form
of mathematics
for all the old 4 Maxwell Equations in order to install the new 5th

equation of Lenz's law.

I was working on this idea last night and did not get far enough along
to be much good.

The idea is that Lenz's law requires the Maxwell Equations to be
inclusive of subatomic particles of unit charge so we have the proton
and electron as p+ and e-.

My first attempt of making Lenz's Law as the 5th Maxwell Equation
looks like this:

-B ==> orthogonal p+ plus e-

What I attempted was to think of a thin wire loop of a single row of
atoms standing still in a configuration of

ppppppppp
eeeeeeeee

Now when a bar magnet is introduced and is changing the field, the e's
start moving
to the leftwards with the speed of light.

So I have a direction and I can have a speed of motion.

But I think what this mathematical Lenz's law gives us is the
existence of the photon or what Faraday called the "disturbance of the
electromagnetic field".

So what Glen is calling the dissipation and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
is that the
photon has no rest mass and does not dissipate.

The four Maxwell Equations of

(1) Monopole Law
(2) Coulomb Law
(3) Faraday Law
(4) Ampere/Maxwell Law

Do not give us the existence of the photon. Those four talk about
charge, but not the existence of the photon, nor that the photon is a
transverse wave. So if we had a 5th Maxwell Equation of the Lenz's law
we can then have the photon as a transverse
wave.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/6/2012 6:17 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> If we never knew what the direction of the current was, and had only
> the 4 Maxwell Equations
> in front of us, and not allowed to do any experiments, would we be
> able to anticipate and then
> derive the Lenz law from the 4 equations? I think not, even though
> Faraday's Law hints of what
> the direction is. So if a mathematician was dealing with the Maxwell
> Equations and could not experiment, but only guess what the direction
> is from the 4 equations, he could not be certain
> unless he actually did the experiments and verified that Lenz's Law is
> true.
>
> So that is what I mean by being derived from the 4 or independent of
> the 4. I believe Lenz's
> law is independent of the 4, and thus needs to be the 5th Maxwell
> Equation.

> Lenz law.

Well, first off, mathematics is NOT more real than reality (no matter
what all the establishment physicists have asserted). Science is ALWAYS
determined by experiment, not by math. But that said, I can assert that
your statement is wrong. As far as Maxwellian theory is concerned Lenz's
law falls right out of Maxwell's equations.

It's right here: E(induced) = - dA*/dt (A* means retarded magnetic
vector potential. The minus sign is Lenz's law!

The problem is you and everybody else are laboring under the delusion
that magnetic and Electric fields "create each other". Jefimenko has
worked out the causality of Maxwell's equations and has shown they do
NOT! Hence a changing magnetic flux DOES NOT (repeat DOES NOT) create an
induced emf.

The above equation shows that an induced emf is created as the result of
an electrokinetic E field that is the result of changing current source.
Changing "flux" is totally irrelevant!

Hence Lenz's law is already IN Maxwell's equations and an added equation
is simply superfluous.

As for Feynman's examples where the "flux rule" does not work. Note that
the flux rule is NOT a law. It comes about because a current source
simultaneously creates an induced E field and a B field at the same
time. Hence the B field is a MEASURE of the E field. But otherwise they
are independent. So it's a "rule" not a law.

And Though Feynman doesn't say it expressly, the problem with the flux
rule is it doesn't work for switched circuits. Trying to apply the flux
rule to switched circuits is a gross mathematical error that of course
leads to totally wrong answers.

(you guys knew I couldn't resist this discussion!)

[Salmon Egg]

In article <2%INq.22362$Uj1....@newsfe20.iad>,

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On 1/6/2012 6:17 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > If we never knew what the direction of the current was, and had only
> > the 4 Maxwell Equations
> > in front of us, and not allowed to do any experiments, would we be
> > able to anticipate and then
> > derive the Lenz law from the 4 equations? I think not, even though
> > Faraday's Law hints of what
> > the direction is. So if a mathematician was dealing with the Maxwell
> > Equations and could not experiment, but only guess what the direction
> > is from the 4 equations, he could not be certain
> > unless he actually did the experiments and verified that Lenz's Law is
> > true.
> >

If I had known that Archie Poo started this annoying thread, I would
never have opened it. The subject is antithetical to science. Th usual
approach real scientists take is to explain nature with a minimal set of
fundamental laws.

This fifth law is merely a corollary of Poynting's theorem. Poynting's
theorem is merely an extension of the conservation of energy to include
electromagnetism. Lenz's law merely reflects the fact that increasing
stored magnetic energy from a source produces an emf that slows down the
transfer of energy to the magnetic field.

The same is true for electric energy. In fact, if nothing disasterous
happens, a capacitor being charged from a capacitor will stop after a
while.

Archie has struck again.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/6/2012 5:36 PM, Salmon Egg wrote:

> If I had known that Archie Poo started this annoying thread, I would
> never have opened it. The subject is antithetical to science. Th usual
> approach real scientists take is to explain nature with a minimal set of
> fundamental laws.

You are right. It IS annoying!

> This fifth law is merely a corollary of Poynting's theorem. Poynting's
> theorem is merely an extension of the conservation of energy to include
> electromagnetism. Lenz's law merely reflects the fact that increasing
> stored magnetic energy from a source produces an emf that slows down the
> transfer of energy to the magnetic field.

The connections with fundamental physics principles is interesting.
Conservation of energy or even more important conservation of momentum.
Oddly, one can easily see that Newton's law of action-reaction which
one would think would be the basis of Lenz's law in fact does not hold
for electromagnetics! Conservation of momentum (both angular and
otherwise) does!

I take issue with your description. First increasing magnetic energy
does NOT produce an emf. What happens is increasing current produces an
E field. The E field exists in space whether or not there is a conductor
there. It is only when there is a conductor that the E field can create
and induced current and then THAT CURRENT becomes the source for a
secondary E field at the source current. And oddly enough, that induced
E field does not slow the transfer of energy but enhances it! (think
transformer with shorted turn) The slowing of energy transfer comes from
the source current ITSELF creating an E field opposing the increasing
current upon ITSELF. It's called self-inductance.

Since the direction of such fields is determined by Lenz's law we can
say as you suggest that this slowing of energy transfer is due to Lenz's
law.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

It is pretty late at night here, in fact morning for most.

Yesterday I gave this as a possible Lenz's law mathematical
form

-B ==> orthogonal p+ plus e-

But I realize now that it is likely the Lenz law reaches further down
into the photon, or light wave itself in that it is a transverse wave
whose E and B waves are at right angles to the direction of motion.

So I think I have to find Lenz law to be covering the photon as

-B ==> orthogonality of light-wave E and B fields and direction of
motion

Now I am not sure, or 100% that Lenz law starts with a light wave
and if it does, then the math equation for Lenz Law for the 5th
Maxwell Equation would be unlike the other 4 Maxwell Equations in that
we have a B field and E field for a individual light wave, and telling
us the direction of motion of the light wave and the transverse nature
of photons.
Now I do not recall how it was proven that light waves are transverse
wavese? Was it through polarization experiments? I do not recall.

And also, I am rather reassured and confident that the photon or light
wave has to be one of the equations of the Maxwell Equations and the
Lenz law is a prime law to provide that characteristic of EM. For it
is plain to see by all who study and think about the Maxwell Equations
that the 4 laws or equations are amiss with the photon. It would be
like that of the Peano axioms in mathematics missing the axiom that a
number 1 exists to start the program.

The Maxwell Equations of its status quo of 4 equations and 4 laws
is about charge and fields, but it is lacking of light-waves which in
fact carries the energy in the system of either changing E or changing
B, so that the change of either E or B is carried by the photon and
reappears as a current or new E field or new B field or both or all
three.

So Maxwell Equations as 4 equations, has a huge gap in it.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 6, 1:56 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)

It is pretty late at night here, in fact morning for most.

Yesterday I gave this as a possible Lenz's law mathematical
form

-B ==> orthogonal p+ plus e-

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 7, 5:38 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Alright, I think I made some big and valuable progress.

What I believe is confusing and confounding the Quantum Physics
community
and the particle physics community is that the Maxwell Equations
lacked
being quantized fully, and what I mean is that the particle wave
duality
extends into rest mass versus rest energy for which that lack of
understanding
gave rise to so much blunder in physics.

If you are going to have rest mass such as an electron yet none for
the photon,
then you must have "rest energy" to fulfill Quantum Mechanics.

This is going to clear up these concepts:

(1) force carrier particle = force mediating particle
(2) difference between photon and neutrino which are the same
(3) Mass versus Space == mass versus "field"

The Maxwell Equations have missing at least one more equation, the
Lenz Law and
it should be the 5th equation. However, there is something special
about Lenz Law
which is somewhat masked in the Faraday and the Ampere/Maxwell law, in
the fact that
Lenz law drops to the level of what the photon actually is and must
be. We can say that the Monopole and Coulomb law tell us what "charge"
is and must be, but those two laws do not detail what the photon is.

And when this Lenz law is completed, it gives us a better
understanding that electricity is not only involving photons but that
electricity is photons where the electrons and protons are what I
would describe as the carriers and the photons are the essential part
of electricity.

When I am finished, I suspect I will have a better understanding of
the Cosmic Redshift, this idea of "tired light" and also join the 2nd
law of thermodynamics
more closely to Quantum Mechanics.

But let me describe what happens in Faraday's law, for we have a
changing magnetic field and we visualize that field as photons without
a E-wave. So here we give rise to a concept of a "standing wave". A
magnet or magnetic field is a standing wave. When we combine a
standing wave magnetic field B with a standing wave of electric-field
E we create a photon, or what Faraday called a disturbance in the EM.

So in this new viewpoint, a light wave or a photon, does not travel
endlessly, but travels only a short distance in time before it becomes
part of Space. In Old Physics, they imagined that a photon endless
travels because they had only the concept of zero rest mass, and they
should have had "rest energy". A photon usually does not travel very
far before it becomes a part of Space rather than a part of mass, as
in a electron current flow. When we flick the switch of a electric
current,
what we are doing is converting photons into becoming the movement of
electrons in that copper wire. The electrons are not what makes
electricity, although they have a
major role, but rather, what makes electricity is that the photons
involved converted Space rest energy into that of active kinetic
energy of making the electrons in the copper wire move along that
copper wire.

So that picture is missing from the Old Physics 4 Maxwell Equations
and needs to be
included in a 5th Maxwell Equation of the Lenz Law.

The Lenz Law written in mathematical form would look in general like
this:

-B = photon

What the Lenz law for the photon is, is that the photon is a
transverse wave of an
E field followed in concert by a B field and the right hand rule of
the kinetic motion where the fingers wrap around the B and E field and
the thumb shows us the forward motion of that photon.

So in the Faraday law or the Ampere/Maxwell law, we had fields and
those fields were either E or B fields but were not a "completed
photon" but rather what we can call
"half formed photons" And when we cause a magnet to move in Faraday's
law, what we are doing is converting Space of the E field or B field
surrounding the closed wire loop, we are causing those E and B fields
to come together to form photons with a forward motion that is given
to the electrons at the speed of light.

This helps explain that the Neutrino is what can be considered a 1/2
of a photon, or a photon not fully formed. A Neutrino is a Space
entity of nonzero rest energy even though, it, like the photon have no
rest mass, both have rest-energy and that rest energy becomes part of
Space.

Now here I think I can explain the recent phenomenon reported from
CERN of superluminal neutrinos. Because when a switch of electricity
is flipped, the signal
is the speed of light, but at CERN with neutrinos, it is not conceived
that there is a circuit, when in fact there is a circuit. The
neutrinos produced or given birth in creation at one geographic
location causes a Space circuit so that instantly when the neutrinos
are borne in a place thousands of kilometers away and tried to be
measured at that distance away is not a measure of the borne-neutrinos
but the space
neutrinos at that faraway distant location.

The photons we measure in Old Physics were the photons with a B and E
fields transverse to one another and moving in a forward direction at
the speed of light, but there are photons that have missing one of the
B and E fields and has become
part of Space with "rest energy" contrasted with the moving photon of
zero rest mass.

In this picture, the E field and the B field are dissembled photons
and neutrinos that make up those fields. The E field and B field are
photons and neutrinos of rest-energy. Once we change something of
charge such as a Faraday experiment, we assemble those fields (we
disturb those fields) and form fully grown photons that then cause an
electric current to flow.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 7, 3:12 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

I never thought of it that way, but with rest-mass and rest-energy, in
effect
I am more precisely defining the Old Physics notions of Kinetic energy
versus
Potential energy. The famous Newton himself grappled with Kinetic
energy versus
Potential energy as seen in his law-a body in motion stays in motion,
and a body
at rest remains at rest. But here, now in 2011-2012 we sharpen up that
distinction
of Kinetic Energy as that of Faraday's law or Ampere/Maxwell law or
both, and where
Potential Energy is the background Space or Aether that is full of
standing waves
of either E field or B field. In other words, the Cosmos or Universe
is one big atom.

Newton was handicapped because in 1660s or thereabouts, electricity
and magnetism
were yet to be developed as a science. And I would be very anxious and
curious to know to what extent Newton knew of magnetism, such as
Gilbert 1600 and whether magnetism caught the attention of Newton. But
never before in physics do we make
more precise the meaning of Potential Energy versus Kinetic Energy in
that the photon as of rest energy is potential energy.

[John Polasek]

Maxwell is all differential equations defining the conditions that
prevail at a given point, and that is all quite ethereal and
untestable. But Maxwell doesn't discuss lumped devices, and such as a
coil with its inductance, which provides a clean way to do experiments
to test the principles. The coil allows us to write two new equations
and finally get a much clearer picture of what is going on.

Nothing useful can be achieved using just algebraic variables. We
strive to learn "how things work". Tell us all about the vector
potential A so we can get a feel for it or else it just more algebra.

Notice that an inductance is a coil with zero resistance. If we apply
a voltage across it, the current, surprisingly, is not infinite. The
reason for the finite current (rate) is Lentz' law which should be
written
V + Ndphi/dt = 0
The causative external voltage V is immediately countered by an
induced voltage, the 2nd term or the current would be infinite, even
briefly. The external voltage can be measured, the internal phidot
voltage cannot. As phi builds up with time, it is the equivalent of
magnetic momentum which cannot be 'killed' in a moment.

A second equation can be written, again not in Maxwell"
V = Ldi/dt
Therefore between the two equations, we can define inductance as
L = dphi/di
just as capacitance can be written as
C = dQ/dV
An even better way of writing Lentz' law is
V/N + dphi/dt = 0
V/N is a solenoidal field expressed as volts/turn. You could take a
unit charge around the axis of the coil along E for 1, 2, 3 or N times
and accumulate infinite work in the limit. In a transformer secondary
there is no limit to the number of turns and associated voltage.
On top of that, we have
curl V = -dB/dt = -dphi/A*dt A = area
The curl is an axial vector that is a measure of the angular velocity
and momentum of the field V that curls around the coil.
Notice the unarguable cause and effect in (1)
I apply V at my convenience, and as a result, dphi/dt arises
immediately to counter V in the face of zero resistance in the coil.
The changing magnetic flux causes an electric field in the turns of
the coil, contary to your statement.
Arguing these things in pure space is another thing of course. But it
is realistic and useful to extrapolate from the tangible to the
ethereal.
John Polasek

[Shmuel Metz]

In <2%INq.22362$Uj1....@newsfe20.iad>, on 01/06/2012

at 03:40 PM, "BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> said:

>The problem is you and everybody else are laboring under the delusion
> that magnetic and Electric fields "create each other".

While you are laboring under the delusion that there are such things
as magnetic and electric field, rather than a single electromagnetic
field.

>The above equation shows that an induced emf is created as the
>result of an electrokinetic E field that is the result of changing
>current source.

No, it just shows how to derive a field from a potential that is
itself coördinate dependent. That's fine as an approximation at low
velocities, but still only an approximation. Worse, Maxwells Equations
have nonzero source-free solutions.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Shmuel Metz]

In <OmMNq.76176$cN1....@newsfe12.iad>, on 01/06/2012

at 07:30 PM, "BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> said:

>The connections with fundamental physics principles is interesting.
>Conservation of energy or even more important conservation of
>momentum.

They are the same thing from a relativistic viewpoint.

> Oddly, one can easily see that Newton's law of action-reaction
>which one would think would be the basis of Lenz's law in fact does
>not hold for electromagnetics!

No; the EM field is part of the physical system.

>Conservation of momentum (both angular and otherwise) does!

Which is exactly what that law states.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/7/2012 5:32 PM, John Polasek wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:40:31 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>> (you guys knew I couldn't resist this discussion!)

> Maxwell is all differential equations defining the conditions that
> prevail at a given point, and that is all quite ethereal and
> untestable. But Maxwell doesn't discuss lumped devices, and such as a
> coil with its inductance, which provides a clean way to do experiments
> to test the principles. The coil allows us to write two new equations
> and finally get a much clearer picture of what is going on.

It's testable (unless you want to get down to the mathematical "point"
level) but as differential equations both sides happen simultaneously.
Hence, one side cannot "cause" the other side. This is the common huge
mistake a lot of people make. Jefimenko digs into this by solving
Maxwell's equations and comes up with "causal" relations. In those we
find charge and current are the ONLY "source" for B and E. And THIS is
the "cleaner" picture!

> Nothing useful can be achieved using just algebraic variables. We
> strive to learn "how things work". Tell us all about the vector
> potential A so we can get a feel for it or else it just more algebra.

Well you might think so, and for a great many years everybody sort of
regarded the vector potential etc. as a "trick" to solve problems rather
than something fundamental. One main reason for this was that you can
add an "arbitrary" constant to A and still get correct answers. But as
Feynman notes in his lectures, these days people are more and more
regarding A as the "fundamental" quantity and B as sort of going along
for the ride. (See Sect. 15 Page 15-12 where he talks about B or A being
the "real" field) Hence the old idea of A just being Algebra is starting
to fall!

> Notice that an inductance is a coil with zero resistance. If we apply
> a voltage across it, the current, surprisingly, is not infinite. The
> reason for the finite current (rate) is Lentz' law which should be
> written
> V + Ndphi/dt = 0
> The causative external voltage V is immediately countered by an
> induced voltage, the 2nd term or the current would be infinite, even
> briefly. The external voltage can be measured, the internal phidot
> voltage cannot. As phi builds up with time, it is the equivalent of
> magnetic momentum which cannot be 'killed' in a moment.

Yes we can talk about the inductance of a wire with "zero" resistance.
It's an interesting case as you note because even the smallest potential
produces a very large (people like to use the false term "infinite")
current. But that does not happen. Why? Because any changing current is
the source for A (A is a vector field falling off as 1/R symmetrical
about a point and the vector is in the direction of the current source)
And changing A as I note relates to the induced E field about the
current. Hence a changing current induces an E field about itself in a
parallel (or anti-parallel) direction. There is a negative sign. [THAT
is Lenz's Law!] Hence as the current in a wire (even of zero Ohms)
begins to flow, that change induces an electric field IN THE WIRE that
opposes the applied potential. And that forms the basis of self-inductance!


Note several things here. First is the basic mechanism: A changing
current induces an E field about itself falling off as 1/R in the
direction of the current source. There is NO model for this mechanism,
it just is. Next, the source creates a retarded A field about the
current. That field can be used to CALCULATE the induced E field.
However, the A field is no more the "CAUSE" of the E field than the B
field is. Which brings us to the B field. A current source ALSO creates
a retarded B field in space which can be used to calculate the induce E
field. But as Feynman notes the B field is not "real" because to use it
in a calculation you must invoke the bogus "action at a distance" rules.
This is why Faraday's law is not real either.

Hence we find that a changing current in space creates at least three
things about itself: A B field, an A field and an E field. NONE of these
fields "cause each other" because they are all simultaneous! The current
source causes them all!

Note that so far we have NOT used circuit theory! We have not worried
about uniform potential over "terminals" and the like. This is still
Maxwellian fields at a point. Inductance is usually defined with regard
to circuit theory (as you do below) but that is not essential. One can
define, for example the DISTRIBUTION of inductance over a geometric
conductor. Such is NOT circuit theory, but it's not quite field theory
either since you are using conditions to pull an "inductance" factor
out. That is not always possible.

> A second equation can be written, again not in Maxwell"
> V = Ldi/dt
> Therefore between the two equations, we can define inductance as
> L = dphi/di
> just as capacitance can be written as
> C = dQ/dV
> An even better way of writing Lentz' law is
> V/N + dphi/dt = 0

> V/N is a solenoidal field expressed as volts/turn. You could take a
> unit charge around the axis of the coil along E for 1, 2, 3 or N times
> and accumulate infinite work in the limit. In a transformer secondary
> there is no limit to the number of turns and associated voltage.
> On top of that, we have
> curl V = -dB/dt = -dphi/A*dt A = area
> The curl is an axial vector that is a measure of the angular velocity
> and momentum of the field V that curls around the coil.

The role of momentum in this discussion is indeed interesting, important
and also a bit obscure. But note that by implying that emf is "caused
by" dphi/dt you are invoking "action at a distance"! For example I could
take the charge around (threaded through) a toroid and it would find
itself in no B field at all. The calculation of emf would then depend on
the B field inside the toroid which is "at a distance". Hence, while the
calculation gives the right "answer" it does not give the correct
"explanation"!

> Notice the unarguable cause and effect in (1)

Which equation is (1)? Note that an equation merely says two things are
EQUAL. It does not say they cause one another! In fact in most equations
both sides take place at identical times which pretty much proves they
do NOT "cause one another".

> I apply V at my convenience, and as a result, dphi/dt arises
> immediately to counter V in the face of zero resistance in the coil.
> The changing magnetic flux causes an electric field in the turns of
> the coil, contary to your statement.
> Arguing these things in pure space is another thing of course. But it
> is realistic and useful to extrapolate from the tangible to the
> ethereal.
> John Polasek

As it turns out material objects don't matter. The E field (Jefimenko
calls it an "electrokinetic E field due to it's different properties
from a static E field) is created about ALL changing currents and does
so both inside and outside of any material! Now if that material is a
conductor such a field does indeed create a voltage which is the
integral of the field along the path of the conductor AND if the ends
are connected one can observe a current as a result of that potential.
What does NOT happen is a changing flux creates that current!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/7/2012 5:54 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<2%INq.22362$Uj1....@newsfe20.iad>, on 01/06/2012
> at 03:40 PM, "BJA...@teranews.com"<be...@iwaynet.net> said:
>
>> The problem is you and everybody else are laboring under the delusion
>> that magnetic and Electric fields "create each other".

> While you are laboring under the delusion that there are such things
> as magnetic and electric field, rather than a single electromagnetic
> field.

What makes you think that because they measure differently in different
frames that they somehow are the "same" thing? And even if they were,
under Maxwellian theory (which is the topic here) they do not, cannot
"create each other".

>> The above equation shows that an induced emf is created as the
>> result of an electrokinetic E field that is the result of changing
>> current source.
>
> No, it just shows how to derive a field from a potential that is
> itself coördinate dependent. That's fine as an approximation at low
> velocities, but still only an approximation. Worse, Maxwells Equations
> have nonzero source-free solutions.

We are talking low velocities here. If fact we are talking situations
where retardation is not required. Moving sources is another step up.
And in any event I again hasten to add that the Electrokinetic E field
is NOT "caused" by the potential field any more than it's caused by the
flux of the B field, even though the A field at least does not require
"action at a distance" to work. The E field source is a time-variable
current. And waves and fields in source-free space bothers you how?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

My Internet connection is malfunctioning ever since December 26 and is
painful to
get posts out due to some tower reception. But hopefully it is going
to be fixed soon
and can do these posts with more detail and better content. I cannot
even look up
other posts during this malfunction and am lucky to get any posts
sent.

What I want to comment on is that the Alain Aspect experiment of John
Bell Inequality with
its superluminal speeds involved that is solved by Superdeterminism is
also at work in
explaining the recent reports by CERN of superluminal neutrinos. CERN
reported last year that
they believe they found speeds greater than light with neutrinos. And
I do not know for sure
the distance involved? Whether it is from the border at France to that
of Italy of several hundreds
of kilometers involved? I do not know.

But I do know that in the Bell Inequality you do have superluminal
speeds unless you admit that the
Bell Inequality with the Aspect experimental results is a proof that
Superdeterminism exists and is at
work in Nature. Otherwise you have Spooky Action at a Distance.

So what I am trying to say is that the recent CERN superluminal
neutrinos is another experiment akin to the Aspect experiments, only
played out on neutrinos.

This is confusing because the Aspect experiments involved light waves
not neutrinos. But if we consider the idea that neutrinos are in fact
light waves, perhaps 1/2 a light wave or 1/2 a photon and that
neutrinos form lines-of-force of E-fields and B-fields in Space. So
that when the creation of neutrinos in CERN in France is initiated,
that the detectors in Italy for the neutrinos shows up at the speed of
light, and the mistake made is to think that those neutrinos actually
travelled the distance of
hundreds of kilometers from France to Italy, when in fact, at the
speed of light they show up in Italy
at their detection apparatus.

So that someone thinking the apparatus is measuring the neutrinos
borne and created in France travelled all those kilometers to get to
Italy is mistaken, in that the neutrinos borne in France,
simultaneously set another neutrino-wave in motion in Italy for the
apparatus to register that neutrino.
So that there are no faster than light speeds, just an instantaneous
change at location B as what happened at location A.

So I think what the CERN neutrino report will end up being is a large
scale duplicate experiment of the
Aspect experiment on the Bell Inequality, only involving neutrinos
rather than photons, or electrons or something else. I could be wrong,
since I do not have many of the facts or details of the CERN report.

If I am correct, then there are no superluminal neutrinos and that
they travel at the speed of light, but
more important, is that if correct, they we have a proof by experiment
that the neutrinos are in fact photons, perhaps a 1/2 photon in that
they maybe missing a B field or a E field or that these fields are
slightly different in a neutrino than in a light-wave. Perhaps in a
neutrino, the B field and E field are not perpendicular but perhaps
something skewed from perpendicular.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 8, 12:47 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Alright, I managed to get that post out, so my connection is still
working although somewhat
crippled.

So let me get back to this idea that the Lenz Law needs to be the 5th
equation for Maxwell's
4 existing equations. We need this 5th equation because the Maxwell
Equations do not admit
of the photon as the carrier particle of EM, or the force mediating
particle of EM. There is no
detail or knowledge of the photon in either the Monopole law, the
Coulomb law, the Faraday law
and finally the Ampere/Maxwell law.

If we include the 5th equation as the Lenz law that roughly looks like
this in general:

-B = photon

Wherein the -B comes from the Faraday law, but on the right side of
the equation what we have
is a math description of a photon as a transverse wave of the E-field
and the B-field, perpendicular
to one another and in a direction of kinetic motion that follows the
right hand thumb rule.

So what the 5th equation of Maxwell does, is tell us the photon exists
and tells us that the direction of motion of a photon and the
direction of motion of an induced electric current in Faraday's law.

The magnanimous importance of this 5th law is that it shows us that
the electric current exists not so much from moving electrons in
concert, but because the photons involved with their standing E-field
and B-field waves transfer the energy of the moving bar magnet into
the electrons via the photons.

And what that further implies is that neutrinos are photons, perhaps
skewed photons for that neutrinos are standing waves of E-field and B-
field and play a role in the Maxwell Equations, such as the recent
report of superluminal neutrino speeds.

With Lenz's law as a law of Maxwell Equations, we begin to realize
that we have particles involved with Space and that Space is composed
of the standing waves of these particles.

The Old Maxwell Equations of the 4 equations neglected to include
Space as a critical and crucial
feature of EM theory, in the Old Maxwell equations, Space was
considered a vacuum or empty and had no role in the physics of the
particles in interactions.

By including Lenz's law we then admit of Space as composed of the
particles involved in EM, and the E field and B-field is Space. In Old
Maxwell Equations, the neutrino was an interloper in EM, as if a
traveller through EM that has no role or function. In New Physics, we
see that Space itself is derived out of the Maxwell Equations and that
neutrinos are just some form of photon.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I reviewed Dirac's Equation to see if it is independent of
the
five Maxwell Equations. Those of us in mathematics easily understand
how
axiom systems work. We recognize that some basic ideas cannot be
further defined
and that those ideas are as fundamental and primary as possible and
for which
we derive all the rest of the ideas within that subject from those
starting axioms.
So we ask if a statement of that subject is derived from those axioms
or results
of those axioms. If it is derivative, then we just note it as
equivalent statement
and thus secondary. However, if the statement is independent of the
axioms and not
able to be derived, then we must make that statement a axiom itself.

So what I have done, is updated Newton for physics. Physics before
2011 had the Newton three laws as its axiom set, with a few Quantum
Mechanics principles thrown in. That was totally unsatisfactory and
derelict of physics for it put the Maxwell Equations as a off-body
laws and called it Classical-physics. What I do is replace the
Newtonian laws of motion and the Quantum Mechanics principles by the
Maxwell Equations themselves. I have to add two more equations to the
old Maxwell Equations
making a total of 6 Maxwell Equations. From those 6 Maxwell Equations
I predict that the entire full subject of Physics, of QM, and
thermodynamics and all the other aspects of physics is completely
derived.

Those familar with mathematics, know that a axiom set is complete if
it can prove all the statements of a subject, whether true or false.
The old 4 Maxwell Equations cannot derive the Lenz law, which means
the Lenz law is independent of the 4 Maxwell
Equations and must be added to the other 4 and thus we now have 5
Maxwell Equations.
However, with 5 Maxwell Equations, we still cannot get all of Physics
from those 5 axioms, because we cannot get antielectron and antiproton
from those 5 Maxwell Equations, nor can we get the Aufbau principle of
building that atomic elements. For that we need a 6th Maxwell Equation
which is the Dirac Equation.

Now I doubt that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics needs an axiom, because
I sense that
the 2nd law of thermodynamics was never really understood fully with
its entropy and
trend to disorder. The word and concept of "disorder" is misleading
and part to blame for the misunderstanding of the 2nd law. The idea of
entropy is that the energy goes into a form that is not retrievable,
so that for example the oceans contains vast amounts of gold, only
trouble is how to collect it. So does the Maxwell Equations, of the 6
equations, does any one of them or several in concert derive this idea
of unretrievable energy, for basically that is the gist of the 2nd
law. And I think the Ampere/Maxwell law has within it, the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, in the idea that some of the energy goes into a "ocean
of unretrievable" being the displacement current. So the displacement
current is likely to be the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And the
displacement current, what it does is put some of the energy into
building more Space, where space is the composition of the E-field and
B-field. But I really wanted to talk about the Dirac Equation in this
post, not the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I believe these 6 laws, or equations forms a complete set of axioms to
yield the entire subject of physics. I say that because those 6 would
be independent and since they are independent would require 6
independent particles for all of physics. If there were 7 Equations to
make the axioms of physics complete, then I would have to have 7
independent particles.

Can I get 6 independent particles of Physics? Quite easily.

proton

electron

photon

antiproton

antielectron

neutrino

What that means is that the entire subject of Physics requires 6
independent particles and all other particles are just simply one of
those 6 with added energy.

This makes the grotesque list of thousands of particles in physics as
sheer nonsense lists. It is like saying that every individual human is
a different species, whereas we know that all humans are of the same
species homo sapiens, and that the muon, the tau particle are not
independent, but merely extra energetic electrons.

If a particle is extra energy, then it is a derivative particle and
not independent. The particles that make up particle physics should be
a list of only independent particles and they are 6 such particles as
noted above.

The old Maxwell Equations give us the proton and electron. The Lenz
law gives us the
photon. The Dirac Equation gives us the antiproton, antielectron, and
gives us the neutrino. The neutrino is now seen as the photon that is
the carrier force for the antiproton with antielectron. A regular atom
has the photon that keeps it together by EM force, whereas the
antiatom has the neutrino that keeps it together. I made a mistake
previously by saying the photon = neutrino. But really, what I should
have said was that the neutrino is the antiphoton. What specifically
is reversed in the neutrino relative to the photon is unclear to me as
of now, but I will keep looking.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I tried to quote a few bits and pieces from Wikipedia on the Bell
Inequality which explains why CERN scientists
think they have superluminal neutrinos.

The CERN scientists are doing a repeat of the Alain Aspect experiment
only rather than using photons, they are using neutrinos. And the
reason that they instantly appear in Italy is because neutrinos are
the antiphoton
of Space and where Space is full of E and B fields of the neutrino, so
that a creation of neutrinos at CERN and measured in Italy for speed,
is connected by the Bell Inequality.


--- quoting Wikipedia in parts ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once
part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of
the child particles was measured.
If quantum theory is correct, the determination of an axis direction
for the polarization measurement of one photon, forcing the wave
function to 'collapse' onto that axis, will influence the measurement
of its twin. This influence occurs despite any experimenters not
knowing which axes have been chosen by their distant colleagues, and
at distances that disallow any communication between the two photons,
even at the speed of light.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

--- quoting Wikipedia in parts ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalities#Practical_experiments_testing_Bell.27s_theorem
Results of tests of Bell's theorem agree with the predictions of
quantum mechanical theory, and demonstrate that some quantum effects
appear to travel faster than light.
Experimental tests can determine whether the Bell inequalities
required by local realism hold up to the empirical evidence.
.
.
.
Bell's inequalities are tested by "coincidence counts" from a Bell
test experiment such as the optical one shown in the diagram. Pairs of
particles are emitted as a result of a quantum process, analysed with
respect to some key property such as polarisation direction, then
detected. The setting (orientations) of the analysers are selected by
the experimenter.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

Words of caution about Wikipedia science entries.
Well I sort of dread quoting the Bell Inequality from
Wikipedia, because Wikipedia's entry is some of the poorest science
entries on the subject of Bell Inequality,
because Wikipedia has free editors who tend to not be
the experts of that subject, but rather cranks of science,
and has some boneheaded philosophers
injecting their own blocked-headed view of what the Bell Inequality is
and what the Aspect experiment is. Wikipedia, since it is a free
encyclopedia
would have the tendency to attract cranks and crackpots of science as
bully editors that write those wrong and muddle-headed entries and
guard them from real scientists making a proper entry of the subject.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 8, 3:48 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Alright, I need this post in the Atom Totality book also because the
Maxwell Equations as axiom set of all of physics is the Atom Totality
theory itself.
For if physics is all described by EM, means the Universe is EM and
that can
only be an atom.

So let me summarize so far. There are 4 old Maxwell Equations which
are:

(1) Monopole law
(2) Coulomb law
(3) Faraday's law
(4) Ampere/Maxwell law

Most of physics is derived from those 4, but they are insufficient and
we
need two more axioms. We need the Lenz law because the Lenz law is
independent
of those four.

(5) Lenz law

The Lenz law is very important because the old 4 could not derive the
photon particle. The Lenz law describes that a photon is a transverse
wave and tells the
direction of motion of that wave in space. Ironic, that the old 4 laws
of EM as described by Maxwell Equations was missing the photon itself,
and doubly ironic in that the brunt of the force of electricity and
magnetism is carried by the photon. What I mean here, is that when
doing the Faraday experiment of moving a bar magnet
in a closed loop of wire, the energy exerted by moving the bar magnet
is translated into the energy of electrons moving in the loop of wire,
but that translation takes place because photons are the carriers of
that energy to the electrons and protons in the wire loop, and so it
is ironic that the old 4 even missed what was making the
electric current flow.

But we need a 6th equation for the Maxwell equations to be complete.
We need this 6th equation because experiments in physics point to the
fact that there are what are called antiparticles. Antiparticles are
not derivative particles but independent particles and thus the 5
Maxwell Equations cannot derive those antiparticles, so we need a 6th
equation. That 6th equation is the Dirac Equation.

(6) Dirac Equation as Law.

Now if you look at the Dirac Equation, you will be surprized to
realize that the 5 Maxwell Equations transition into the Dirac
Equation, and that the Dirac Equation is not totally foreign to the
mathematics of the Maxwell Equations. The Dirac Equation
upon reflection is a sort of summary of the 5 Maxwell equations, and I
can make quite a nice probe into the Dirac Equation showing how the 5
Maxwell Equations lead up to the Dirac Equation.

Now it is straightforward logic that if 6 equations describes all of
Physics, and that they are each independent of one another, means
there has to be in Nature 6 and only 6 independent particles as force
carriers for those 6 laws. That Nature has 6 independent particles and
all the other particles are merely derivatives (higher energy) of
these 6 fundamental particles.

(1) electron
(2) proton
(3) photon
(4) antiphoton = neutrino
(5) antielectron = positron
(6) antiproton

In the Atom Totality book this post appears in the chapter on Space,
and that is
a relevant chapter because the Monopole law of Maxwell Equations is a
very very
important law since it tells us from the start that physics is
duality. That as we have positive charge we have negative charge, that
as we have mass/matter we have Space. That existence in physics is
duality. Charge is duality to mass, and matter is duality of Space,
and particle is duality of wave and on and on.

So the Maxwell Equations of those 6 listed is very much the axiom set
of all of Physics for it starts off with what exists and what exists
is duality. We see it in the Maxwell equations that whenever you focus
attention of say the E-field, you have to focus attention on its dual
the B-field. Whenever you get a current, you get something dual to
it.

Old Physics never realized that Space is a dual, and old physics
viewed space as some empty vacuum wherein the rest of physics takes
place. The Standard Model of particle physics was a fake physics for
it never realized that Space was physics, and it never realized that
the Maxwell Equations do away with the Particle Physics Zoo, of such
nonsense as the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson is religion or
philosophy,
but not physics.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 8, 2:43 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)
>

> (6) Dirac Equation as Law.
>
> Now if you look at the Dirac Equation, you will be surprized to
> realize that the 5 Maxwell Equations transition into the Dirac
> Equation, and that the Dirac Equation is not totally foreign to the
> mathematics of the Maxwell Equations. The Dirac Equation
> upon reflection is a sort of summary of the 5 Maxwell equations, and I
> can make quite a nice probe into the Dirac Equation showing how the 5
> Maxwell Equations lead up to the Dirac Equation.
>

Not only transition but I am going to argue that the Dirac Equation is
a
consequence of the Maxwell Equations.

--- quoting the Dirac Equation from Wikipedia ---
The equation in the form originally proposed by Dirac is: [1] [2]

where ψ = ψ(r, t) is the wave function for the electron, r and t are
the space and time coordinates, m is the rest mass of the electron,
is the momentum operator, c is the speed of light, and ħ is the
reduced Planck constant (h/2π).
The dimension of each side of the equation is energy, recalling that
cp (velocity × momentum), mc2 (rest energy), and ħ/t (action/time) are
all energies. In light of this - there are some parallels with this
equation and the Schrödinger equation. Both the same structure:

where the Schrödinger Hamiltonian is (sum of kinetic and potential
energy)
--- end quoting ---

Much of the symbolism did not copy paste but what survived is enough
to tell us a few things.

Notice that the Schrodinger Equation general form is similar to the
Faraday Equation
and then the Dirac Equation has an additional terms, similar to the
fact that the
Ampere/Maxwell equation has additional terms over that of the Faraday
Equation.

What I mean is in general mathematical form:

Faraday Law

B = q

Ampere/Maxwell Law

E = B + d

Schrodinger Equation

B = q

Dirac Equation

E = B + d

In general math form the Dirac Equation is a natural offspring of the
Maxwell Equations.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <Mk6Oq.55490$mJ.3...@newsfe10.iad>, on 01/07/2012

at 08:30 PM, "BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> said:

>What makes you think that because they measure differently in
>different frames that they somehow are the "same" thing?

Do you also believe that the x, y and z components of a vector are
distinct things?

>And even if they were, under Maxwellian theory (which is the
>topic here) they do not, cannot "create each other".

Not have I claimed that they do.

>And waves and fields in source-free space bothers you how?

They don't bother me at all, because I don't talk about one field
component causing another. BTW, this is one of two news groups that is
totally irrelevant to EM theory.

[John Polasek]

It's clear by now that you have no experience working with electrical
equipment or magnets or transformers or you would not talk like that.
From the Lentz equation we can solve for the magnetic flux phi which
ordinarily would be a difficult calculation:
dphi/dt = -V/N volts/turn
phi = -V/N integral dt = volt seconds per turn in webers
See Wiki which defines one tesla as flux density of 1
volt*second/meter^2 or 1 weber/m^2.
The iron core amplifies permeability and voltage is transferred from
primary to secondary through the magnetic field in the iron, but the
iron can saturate as a result of too many volt seconds, meaning the
iron that worked at 400hz will saturate at 60hz. That proves that the
magnetic field is the agency for the output voltage

As far as adding to the Maxwell equations, I offer a new electric
field, Vn calibrated as volts per turn, entirely different than E
volts per meter. With a solenoidal field Vn, the tangential field E
becomes weaker and weaker with radius, volts per turn being constant.
John Polasek

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/8/2012 6:12 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<Mk6Oq.55490$mJ.3...@newsfe10.iad>, on 01/07/2012
> at 08:30 PM, "BJA...@teranews.com"<be...@iwaynet.net> said:
>
>> What makes you think that because they measure differently in
>> different frames that they somehow are the "same" thing?
>
> Do you also believe that the x, y and z components of a vector are
> distinct things?

Actually that is an interesting question. For example: Say I have two
fields of some type in space equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction. The question is does that produce a region of NO fields or is
it a region where there is no action from the fields (because they
cancel) but both fields STILL EXIST there "flowing" "through each other"
in opposite directions?

>> And even if they were, under Maxwellian theory (which is the
>> topic here) they do not, cannot "create each other".
>
> Not have I claimed that they do.

Good.

>> And waves and fields in source-free space bothers you how?
>
> They don't bother me at all, because I don't talk about one field
> component causing another. BTW, this is one of two news groups that is
> totally irrelevant to EM theory.

So why, therefore, is someone as advanced and relevant to EM theory as
you posting here with Mr. Plutonium?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/8/2012 9:18 PM, John Polasek wrote:

> It's clear by now that you have no experience working with electrical
> equipment or magnets or transformers or you would not talk like that.

What is clear is you have come to "believe" in something that is not true.

> From the Lentz equation we can solve for the magnetic flux phi which
> ordinarily would be a difficult calculation:
> dphi/dt = -V/N volts/turn
> phi = -V/N integral dt = volt seconds per turn in webers
> See Wiki which defines one tesla as flux density of 1
> volt*second/meter^2 or 1 weber/m^2.
> The iron core amplifies permeability and voltage is transferred from
> primary to secondary through the magnetic field in the iron, but the
> iron can saturate as a result of too many volt seconds, meaning the
> iron that worked at 400hz will saturate at 60hz. That proves that the
> magnetic field is the agency for the output voltage

Why complicate things with iron. That proves nothing. Since induced EMF
happens in places where there is no magnetic field, for it to a the
agency requires some kind of bogus "action at a distance". And that does
not even get into the actual mathematical calculations demonstrating
true causality. Apparently you have no experience with such mathematical
calculations.

> As far as adding to the Maxwell equations, I offer a new electric
> field, Vn calibrated as volts per turn, entirely different than E
> volts per meter. With a solenoidal field Vn, the tangential field E
> becomes weaker and weaker with radius, volts per turn being constant.
> John Polasek

It's not only an "entirely different" "field" it's not even an E field.
Sorry the units are wrong. The units of "turns" are not length, hence
what you have created is a volts not volts per meter. What is relevant
is the E field outside any current source. Which is to say the force
upon any charge placed at any position about the current source. THAT is
an E field (though certainly not the same kind of field as a "static" E
field from charge. The old "one E field" rule is nonsense too.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I spent much of the day thinking of this problem, the problem of how
to make the neutrino be the
antiphoton, similar to what the positron is the antiparticle of the
electron.

Now that maybe a good pursuit or I maybe wasting my time, because of
the idea that particle meets antiparticle and ends up in photon
emission as annihilation into energy. So if a neutrino were a
antiphoton and the two should meet, would annihilate and be what? more
photons?

There is asymmetry in the Maxwell Equations, and so there maybe
asymmetry in the photon as
antiparticle to the neutrino. The spin of the photon is 1 and the spin
of the neutrino is 1/2.

The photon is a transverse wave of orthogonal E-field to B-field.

What can the neutrino be, if it were the antiphoton? Could it be the
longitudinal wave? Could it be a
torsion wave?

The torsion wave sounds promising (pun not intended). Promising
because we have that 1/2 to 1 asymmetry of spin. So what if the
neutrino was a wave of 1/2 spin and was a Torsion Wave and what it
does to propagate in Space, since Space is positron space and space is
filled with the E-field and B-field of a cosmic lines-of-force. So
that a neutrino that is borne, travels through space on a E-field as a
torsion wave, and simultaneously travels on a B-field as a torsion
wave?

As I posted earlier, I do not recall what experiments in physics have
proven that light waves are transverse waves with the E and B fields
perpendicular? I do not know what experiments proves those facts. So I
wonder what, if any experiments tell us what type of wave the neutrino
is? Whether the neutrino can be a torsion-wave?

I wonder if asked the question, if the neutrino is the antiphoton,
what type of wave propagation would a antiphoton have? Would it also
have a transverse wave? I doubt it. So that leaves the neutrino with
the possibility of having a longitudinal wave or better yet, the
torsion wave.

It would be nice if the neutrino did have a torsion wave propagation
because then it is easier to make the 1/2 spin conform to the spin 1.
And we can thence envision that neutrinos, travelling through Space,
actually travel along the lines of force of the E-field and B-field of
photons.

Or, I may have that in reverse, in that Space is the lines of force
caused and created by neutrinos which is the E-field and that the B-
field is a torsional wave that travels along the E-field and vice
versa.

I am trying as best I can to make the neutrino a antiphoton. The
neutrino is likely to be more primitive than the photon since the
neutrino is 1/2 spin versus the photon spin of 1. And I think I can
achieve that more primitive state for the neutrino by making it a
torsional wave that can travel, so to speak,
down the road of either the E-field or B-field, rather than the photon
which has two roads of a simultaneous E-field with B-field. For it
would not make sense that the neutrino is an antiphoton with both of
them transverse waves. So I think the anti-propagation of a transverse
wave would be the
torsion wave, and the torsion wave could itself account for the spin
of 1/2 whereas there is no spin of a photon transverse wave other than
1.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/9/2012 7:22 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 1/8/2012 6:12 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In<Mk6Oq.55490$mJ.3...@newsfe10.iad>, on 01/07/2012
>> at 08:30 PM, "BJA...@teranews.com"<be...@iwaynet.net> said:
>>
>>> What makes you think that because they measure differently in
>>> different frames that they somehow are the "same" thing?
>>
>> Do you also believe that the x, y and z components of a vector are
>> distinct things?
>
> Actually that is an interesting question. For example: Say I have two
> fields of some type in space equal in magnitude and opposite in
> direction. The question is does that produce a region of NO fields or is
> it a region where there is no action from the fields (because they
> cancel) but both fields STILL EXIST there "flowing" "through each other"
> in opposite directions?

Yes that was the question. Will you now give
us the answer according to your belief? (Or
is there some doubt creeping up? Please, don't
betray Jefimenko! The currents create the
fields which then _must_ still be there! Show
some strength in facing your interrogators!)

--
Jos

[John Polasek]

Yes, it's volts/turn alright.
Look again at the non Maxwellian equation
V = -N*phidot volts
phidot = -V/N volts/turn lets you calculate flux rate
phidot = -Vn volts/turn = flux rate
I know this is out of your terrritory but believe me if I tell you
that you can take an existing transformer and thread another wire
through it to make a new secondary, and the voltage you will read at
the termini of the wire will be Vn x 1 turn, whether the wire is a
foot or a mile long. Then take the long wire and use it up in n turns
and you will get n*Vn volts.
What is obviously constant is the flux rate and equally, the volts per
turn.
From this, if you want to calculate your field E volts/m divide n*Vn
by L the length of the wire. The value of E now depends on how much
wire you used, rendering it useless. What is constant is phidot and
Vn.

>What is relevant
>is the E field outside any current source. Which is to say the force
>upon any charge placed at any position about the current source. THAT is
>an E field (though certainly not the same kind of field as a "static" E
>field from charge. The old "one E field" rule is nonsense too.
>

I will hazard a guess that your electromagnetic tutelage is of the cgs
school rather than SI. SI puts great credence in mu0 and ep0 occupying
space to make sense of the equations. cgs doesn't even have coulombs.
What, you didnt know there were two schools? Then you are a cgs'er.
But, it's never too late to repent.
John Polasrek

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 9, 2:59 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Alright, I am going to need a lot more definitions in order to wrestle
and grapple
with how a neutrino is an antiphoton and whether a neutrino is a force
carrier
particle with the positron to the electron.

Some definitions I will need:

(1) lines of force, Faraday's lines of force

(2) standing wave, guide wave

(3) Force mediating particle, force carrier particle

(4) Space, Dirac ocean of positron space

(5) Mass, matter

(6) Luminiferous Aether, a medium for the photons to travel in


What I am trying to do is figure out what the neutrino has to be as a
particle in order for it to be a
antiphoton. In order to do that, I need more definitions.

The picture is that the neutrino is a antiphoton, but instead of
annihilation when neutrino meets with
photon, is that they become more photons or more neutrinos. When
proton and antiproton meet they become photons.

Atom Totality picture:

Mass and matter that we see are the last 6 electrons of a big 231Pu
plutonium atom. The galaxies and stars and planets are bits and pieces
of the last 6 electrons forming our astronomy skies. The Space that
this matter moves in is composed of Dirac's ocean of positrons, but
also as Faraday's lines-of-force as standing waves of both neutrinos
and of photons. Gravity is thus EM-gravity in that the Earth orbits
the Sun because the Sun has the most positrons as its center and Earth
is revolving in orbit around the Sun, much like a current flows in a
closed loop wire from a moving bar magnet (sun as bar magnet).

Now all these definitions should come out of the 6 Maxwell Equations,
especially lines of force and standing wave.

I am doing this because, this is the best way of realizing how a
neutrino can be the antiphoton.

A wave can be three likely possibilities, a transverse wave, a
longitudinal wave or a torsion wave. We know the photon is a
transverse wave, but what is the neutrino as a wave?

Alright, we have EM-gravity and that would engender lines of force or
Faraday lines of force for Space.
So we have Space as lines of force and also as ocean of positrons. And
we have the photon as a E-field with a B-field in motion in a
transverse wave. So what is the neutrino in motion as a wave such that
it is the antiphoton? Would it be a transverse wave that is lacking
either a E-field or a B-field, one of the two missing? This brings up
the question of whether the neutrino is a force carrier particle
acting between the electron and positron? Or, whether the neutrino is
a force carrier particle that acts only between the antiproton and
antielectron? Since the photon acts between the proton and electron,
there is a good likelihood that the neutrino acts only between
antiproton and antielectron, and that would imply that neutrinos are
photons that are created only in nuclear regions, since only in the
nucleus can we have an antiproton. So that implies that neutrinos all
have their origins from some nuclear event.

If neutrinos are all originated from nuclear events would imply they
are not force carrier particles between positrons and electrons and
thus they would be a standing-wave and be the Space of astronomy. So
that Space of astronomy is the last 6 electrons of 231Pu as matter and
Space as
a ocean of positrons with neutrinos as standing waves. So the
luminiferous aether would be neutrinos of Space. Now what can the
neutrino be in order for photons to use them as the aether to travel
in?

Here I can picture the lines of force for the photon as both the E-
field and the B-field, but with neutrinos as lines of force, perhaps
we have only the E-field.

Now is there something known in astronomy that can make that claim
acceptable? I believe there are two facts in astronomy at present time
which can help confirm the neutrino as lines of force of Space
and as the antiphoton.

(i) Sun has missing neutrinos
(ii) pulsars as neutrino-photon annihilation producing pulsing radio
wave signals

Perhaps we are not far enough away from the Sun to have noticed that
the Sun is a pulsar, a weak and faint pulsar for 1/3 of the neutrinos
produced by the Sun are engaged in a photon to neutrino annihilation
that yields a pulsed radio signal.

I suspect, if my above is correct in parts or whole, that stars
produce a flood of neutrinos and that a large proportion of those
neutrinos engage in a annihilation with photons, producing a faint and
weak pulsing radio signal. In the lifetime of a star there comes a
time that the neutrino production becomes such that weak pulses turn
into strong pulses.

Now I am chasing after what neutrinos are as antiphotons and will not
be chasing after pulsars at this moment.

Now we have the Maxwell Equations to define these terms above and we
have the Maxwell Equations that describes a Radio being built and
operated. A pulsar is in fact a Radio station emitting a signal. So
here the question would be, can you assemble the neutrino with the
photon and form a radio from those two particles?

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

John Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)

> I will hazard a guess that your electromagnetic tutelage is of the cgs
> school rather than SI. SI puts great credence in mu0 and ep0 occupying
> space to make sense of the equations. cgs doesn't even have coulombs.
> What, you didnt know there were two schools? Then you are a cgs'er.
> But, it's never too late to repent.

There are at least four schools. Besides SI, there are the CGS AB units,
like SI based on the force between currents, the STAT units, unlike SI
and based on the force between charges, and Heaviside-Lorentz units,
similar to Gaussian units but with the 4pi moved around.

I have known exams where you are allowed to choose your units system,
though you must state at the beginning which one you are using.

I once gave a physics quiz where students had to create their own
unit system. That is, at each stage there was a blank, and one had to
supply a new name for the newly created unit. At the end, one learns
(learning during a quiz isn't bad) that one can't separately define
units for electrostatics and magnetostatics in a single consistent unit
system. As I remember, the students didn't like it much.

-- glen

[Salmon Egg]

In article <je6j6s$dlg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>
> > So why would Feynman call it a "rule" and not a law.
>
> Pretty much what it does is gives a direction to time in which energy
> of a system is lost to heat. Many physical laws don't require that,
> but the fact that positive resistors are much more common than negative
> resistors leads to this rule.

A rule is usually a specific description of a law in a particular
situation. For example, the right hand rules in electromagnetics
relating current flow to the direction of a magnetic field or emf in
moving wires are all explained by Maxwell's equations.

Hund rules in atomic phyusics are not absolute but pretty close.

"i" before "e" except after "c". in orthography is a lousy rule, but
English spelling was never a science.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

(snip on rule vs. law)

> A rule is usually a specific description of a law in a particular
> situation. For example, the right hand rules in electromagnetics
> relating current flow to the direction of a magnetic field or emf in
> moving wires are all explained by Maxwell's equations.

I thought about using the right hand rule for an example, but
it really isn't the same. The right hand rule works because we
prefer right-hander coordinate systems, which we do so that the
right-hand rule will work.

There used to be a story about a book by a well-known physicist that
did everything in a left-handed coordinate system.

Otherwise, I recommend reading the last chapter in Feynman's
"Lectures on Physics" volume 1, related to left, right, and parity.
(My favorite chapter in the whole series.)

-- glen

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/9/2012 6:37 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> Yes that was the question. Will you now give
> us the answer according to your belief? (Or
> is there some doubt creeping up? Please, don't
> betray Jefimenko! The currents create the
> fields which then _must_ still be there! Show
> some strength in facing your interrogators!)

Actually there is no "must". That would depend on the actual mechanism
you propose for field forces. Which is why the question is so
interesting. My "belief" here is irrelevant, but the person who does
(well did!) believe in both fields still existing was the late professor
Hooper. He devised a couple of experiments designed to demonstrate this
fact. Personally I think they are flawed in some manner though I'm not
sure how. Basically he set up two magnets with a wire between them where
the fields cancel to zero. But then if you move one of the magnets
(which supposedly gives qV x B forces for THAT field) you get a voltage.
Hence the argument that even though a gaussmeter asserts that there are
NO magnetic fields in the region of the wire, the relative motion shows
that the fields still exist though their effects on a gaussmeter cancel
out. It all remains to be seen.


And the above has NOTHING to do with professor Jefimenko. He merely
states that changing currents cause E fields in space. He supplies no
mechanism. And quite frankly, I can't supply one either! Just HOW could
this sort of thing happen? The usual idea that somehow the magnetic
field (or it's flux at a distance) causes the E field has been
discredited by Jefimenko. The B field does not and CANNOT cause an E
field. And while the A field has a simple direct relationship to the
induced E field, THAT can't be the "cause" either for the same reasons
that the B field can't! So what in hell DOES cause a current to induce
currents in neighboring conductors? Jefimenko raises more questions than
he answers!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/9/2012 10:40 AM, John Polasek wrote:

> Yes, it's volts/turn alright.

It's "volts/ turn" because you have a non-conservative E field hence if
you integrate around a closed path, every time you go around again you
add on the same value which is to say you multiply by the number of
"turns" n.

> Look again at the non Maxwellian equation
> V = -N*phidot volts
> phidot = -V/N volts/turn lets you calculate flux rate
> phidot = -Vn volts/turn = flux rate
> I know this is out of your terrritory but believe me if I tell you
> that you can take an existing transformer and thread another wire
> through it to make a new secondary, and the voltage you will read at
> the termini of the wire will be Vn x 1 turn, whether the wire is a
> foot or a mile long. Then take the long wire and use it up in n turns
> and you will get n*Vn volts.
> What is obviously constant is the flux rate and equally, the volts per
> turn.
> From this, if you want to calculate your field E volts/m divide n*Vn
> by L the length of the wire. The value of E now depends on how much
> wire you used, rendering it useless. What is constant is phidot and
> Vn.

Again you are insisting on iron cored transformers. This makes all your
calculations simply approximations. Iron cores are not perfect. Since
you are supposed to be electrically experienced, you know all about
various leakage and saturation effects. The relationship you are
promoting is based upon an ideal situation where there is no leakage and
the flux through your wire does not change as you alter the path.
Obviously in the real world this can't always be true.

Now switch to an RF type air cored transformer. Now the flux through the
secondary loop VERY MUCH depends upon the path. Volts/turn very much
depends on path. Your "theory" falls apart.

Again I repeat!

>> What is relevant
>> is the E field outside any current source. Which is to say the force
>> upon any charge placed at any position about the current source. THAT is
>> an E field (though certainly not the same kind of field as a "static" E
>> field from charge. The old "one E field" rule is nonsense too.

> I will hazard a guess that your electromagnetic tutelage is of the cgs
> school rather than SI. SI puts great credence in mu0 and ep0 occupying
> space to make sense of the equations. cgs doesn't even have coulombs.
> What, you didnt know there were two schools? Then you are a cgs'er.
> But, it's never too late to repent.

Sorry Charlie, but my tutelage was in SI units with a passing brief
mention of the others. SI (then called rationalized MKS), cgs, gaussian,
EMU, ESU etc. (What? You didn't know there were more than just two
units?) I hate to tell you this, but contrary to the current popularity
of talking about "gauges", changing units does not change reality. In
this day of effective computers, fooling with units is basically just
one big wank party. Feels good, accomplishes nothing.

[Salmon Egg]

In article <jeg78v$8j5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> I thought about using the right hand rule for an example, but
> it really isn't the same. The right hand rule works because we
> prefer right-hander coordinate systems, which we do so that the
> right-hand rule will work.

Handedness is built into the Modern version of the Maxwell equation set.
It aruses from the curl equations.

[John Polasek]

Not at all. I was proving that the medium of transfer is in the
magnetic field provided by the iron plus the vacuum mu0(1+X) and not
by some hypothetical electrical "rash" provided by jostling electrons.

>
>Now switch to an RF type air cored transformer. Now the flux through the
>secondary loop VERY MUCH depends upon the path. Volts/turn very much
>depends on path.

Yes, we assign a "coupling coefficient" only determinable by trial,
after which we will detect k*Vn x N turns [volts] which satisfies the
theory.
>>> Your "theory" falls apart.
Not.

>
>Again I repeat!
>>> What is relevant
>>> is the E field outside any current source. Which is to say the force
>>> upon any charge placed at any position about the current source.

The "current source" is in the primary winding. The back emf appears
in this winding, resisting an inrush of current approximating V/0.
What position would you select to place your test charge "about the
current source" (primary) to detect and measure the E field?

>>>THAT is
>>> an E field (though certainly not the same kind of field as a "static" E
>>> field from charge. The old "one E field" rule is nonsense too.
>
>> I will hazard a guess that your electromagnetic tutelage is of the cgs
>> school rather than SI. SI puts great credence in mu0 and ep0 occupying
>> space to make sense of the equations. cgs doesn't even have coulombs.
>> What, you didnt know there were two schools? Then you are a cgs'er.
>> But, it's never too late to repent.
>
>Sorry Charlie, but my tutelage was in SI units with a passing brief
>mention of the others. SI (then called rationalized MKS), cgs, gaussian,
>EMU, ESU etc. (What? You didn't know there were more than just two
>units?) I hate to tell you this, but contrary to the current popularity
>of talking about "gauges", changing units does not change reality. In
>this day of effective computers, fooling with units is basically just
>one big wank party. Feels good, accomplishes nothing.

Physics is all about units; the numbers are for mathematicians and
numerology. eps0 = 8.8e-12 F/m has definite meaning, for one thing in
calibrating capacitors.
I admit this facet is all but ignored in E&M tutelage, but I read a
paper from a big quantum mechanics establishment that pleaded for some
relief from E&M to help them out of their little 5-variable cage, but
which expressed doubt that these E & M coefficients were even taken
seriously.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0131
The quantum vacuum at the foundations of classical electrodynamics
G Leuchs, A S Villar, L L Sánchez-Soto; Max Planck Institut fur die
Physik des Lichts
Applied Physics B, Volume: 100 , Issue: 1 (2010); Springer-Verlag
I have a paper answering their questions, just haven't tried to
publish.
John Polasek

>
>

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 9, 2:15 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)
>

> Now we have the Maxwell Equations to define these terms above and we
> have the Maxwell Equations that describes a Radio being built and
> operated. A pulsar is in fact a Radio station emitting a signal. So
> here the question would be, can you assemble the neutrino with the
> photon and form a radio from those two particles?
>

That above was probably grossly in error.

A pulsar is more likely to be a combination of the spin of the star
with EM-gravity. In Old Physics
a pulsar was a "neutron star" involving its spin. In New Physics a
pulsar is a ordinary star and spinning and the EM-gravity causes radio
pulses. Now I need to do an experiment in which I measure a spinning
electric motor to see if it emits regular pulses of radio signals?
Anyone ever do such an experiment? In other words, every spinning
electric motor produces regular pulses of radio signals.
So that in New Physics, every gravitational bound body in astronomy is
actually an electric motor. Now I have read reports that Jupiter is a
regular pulsing radio emitter. Now no-one in astronomy or science
would claim Jupiter is a pulsar. But what it does go to show is that
in New Physics, since gravity is now EM-gravity, that all
gravitationally bound bodies can be pulsars. Our Sun is probably a
low-intensity pulsar if we ever get far enough away from the Sun, such
as at Pluto measuring the Sun.

But I doubt whether anyone in physics has asked the question of
whether our Sun is producing more photons than what the Standard Model
suggests. So that if gravity is a fake force and that EM-gravity is
the real force which means that all stars are following the Faraday
Law and as those stars produce neutrinos and those neutrinos, perhaps
1/3 of all total neutrinos combines with a photon and annihilate into
a more energetic photon, could be the explanation of quasar stars.
That quasar stars are those stars large enough that their neutrino
production is enormous and that those neutrinos are annihilating with
photons to produce more energetic photons.

The Standard Model suggests that 1/3 of the neutrinos from the Sun are
missing. What I am suggesting is that those 1/3 neutrinos combined
with photons to yield more energetic photons. Now I am not aware of
our Sun producing more photons than the Standard Model, so this is an
entirely new question to ask of physics.

But recently there was a report from CERN about superluminal
neutrinos. So maybe at CERN we can probe this question further by
actually observing that beam of neutrinos to see if there are photons
present of higher energy than normally expected when a beam of
neutrinos is present.

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

On Jan 9, 9:20 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> In sci.physics.electromag Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > A rule is usually a specific description of a law in a particular
> > situation. For example, the right hand rules in electromagnetics
> > relating current flow to the direction of a magnetic field or emf in
> > moving wires are all explained by Maxwell's equations.
>
> I thought about using the right hand rule for an example, but
> it really isn't the same. The right hand rule works because we
> prefer right-hander coordinate systems, which we do so that the
> right-hand rule will work.

I don't believe that this is an accurate analysis of the right hand
rule of electromagnetism. I do agree that convention is involved,
however the convention is that of what a positive current is and of
what polarity a magnetic field takes.

I think that one way into some scrutiny of the right hand rule is to
admit that it does not state any law of intensity such as the
reciprocal square law (1/[rr]) so that we don't have any quality as to
the intensity and the distribution of the magnetic field around a
current carrying straight wire which is otherwise unimpeded.

This law works for electromagnetism within a 3D space, but there is no
need to have any regard for the coordinate system within that space.
What we need is a charged body with a velocity. This is quite enough
to deduce the magnetic field as orthogonal in a loop such that as the
thumb takes the orientation of the body the fingers take the
orientation of the magnetic flux, their tips pointing in a way such
that a polarity is noted, all regardless of any coordinate system
specifics. A left handed coordinate system will not corrupt the right
hand rule of electromagnetism. It would be very neat if a
falsification of this claim exists, and that would be something new
and exciting.

The right hand rule is a very fine position from which to consider the
directed nature of electromagnetic effects. Whereas charge does appear
to be a fairly isotropically behaved phenomenon with its 1/(rr) type
of field behavior, the magnetic portion is not at all isotropic and
the fact that the magnetic 'field' must always contain loops of flux
really belays the tragic dismissal of these geometric concerns as
'field theory'. Beyond this the mathematician uses the term field to
mean his own thing, while the physicist and engineer use the term
field to mean a generic (i.e. mathematical) principle within their
belief structure. These two usages of field (one algebraic behavior
and one physical model) are in conflict and are entirely independent
as far as I can tell. What a shame and a sham that the crossover from
mathematics to physics is so corrupted. Within the physics version
discussed here the electric field and the magnetic field are treated
as if their geometries were similar. They are not. They are unique.
Until we find a clean geometrical relation through which to view
electricity and magnetism then we are not dealing in a unified field
theory. Whether this supposed unified field theory can envelop gravity
or thermodynamics would be quite a gain, but I suggest that the
appropriate relation is within geometrical analysis, and particularly
a braneish form of dimensional hierarchy. That the field theory does
also supposedly accommodate the 'gravitational field' with its entire
lack of polarity is a strong signal as is the signal of the
geometrical differences between the bipolar electric field and the
supposed bipolar magnetic field, though when the loop is taken as
fundamental just one tick is necessary to denote its quality. That the
string theorists so happily overlook this loop is just another tragedy
of modern physics. They will happily conceal themselves and hide far
beneath this level of physical reality in a realm that is
unobservable. Shame on they, and shame on their high dimensional
theory that provides no support at all for spacetime other than the
usual contrived empirical support, which is in direct conflict with
the notion of theory. We have arrived in a curve fitters paradise, one
where science fiction and science are so cleanly melded that to claim
the ability to distinguish one from the other has us all as quite
high, whether drug induced or not.

As I read over Lenz's law I see it as a purely experimental paradigm
just as this video attempts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHCwgc_xs3s
As such Lenz's law can stand freely and is a predecessor to Maxwell's
equations (I would think). I doubt whether there are any deep
consequences, but the investigation is excellent. For instance in the
edumation youtube video it appears that the magnetic field is oriented
with flux in the same plane as the coils winding plane. I suspect an
even stronger effect exists when the flux is passing up through the
center of the coil. Then again, they did not explicitly state the
orientation of the magnetic field so it is possible that they did set
this up. A speaker coil is clearly properly oriented for this
mechanical interaction, and perhaps an assessment of the clearances
would yield a primitive measure of the intensity of the coils field.

If you want to feel magnetic resistance try taking apart a printer
with a stepper motor, and try spinning the armature short circuit and
then open circuit. Some of these motors provide remarkable impedance.
Even a small standard DC three pole motor can do this but when you
feel it from one of these steppers you know you've got something
impressive. Also these steppers are a nice supply for wire since on
some of them the wire is simply spooled within the motor case. Just
leave the wire on these spools and you have a nice source of enameled
wire for experimentation. It tends to be very fine wire so if you are
attempting to make sensetive equipment it is quite good. For heavy
wire try old speakers with blown out voice coils. Inside of high power
high quality speakers exist crossover networks which include coils of
large gauge enameled wire and again it is already spooled and ready to
go. So when you need an inductor consider keeping both ends of your
wire spool accessible for electrical connection. You may have quite
some inductance on a large spool. Also this copper is a valuable
commodity so you are doing a service by recycling it directly.

There may exist such a societal high that includes the almighty dollar
and its penetration into other countries whose creatives are sucked up
like any natural resource that a greedy capitalist discovers. Whether
the state of corruption identifies with the 99% movement is beyond
argument. I suggest a lower number might be appropriate to work with
rhetorically, such as the 76%; the 76'ers or some such; Isn't that
enough? The 24%... the failed power structure that is the USA. It is
wider that government. It is all about the used car salesman that
sells you a lemon with a facelift. It is all about the advertising
freelancer who has just discovered the latest human psychology drift
and sees the next state of human corruption to leverage. It is even
about the engineer who works to maintain proprietary technology that
squeezes out the competitor. What this culture is squeezing out reeks
like a dead animal.

I suppose we here on usenet are the 0.1%, or even less. Well, here we
say it like it is.
I am the 1.428571429E-10% !
Is this empowerment? Well, let's just say that depowering a power
structure could be done carefully, but then again the thing might just
blow up. Power failure on the grandest scale... might be time to drop
it back a notch, Uncle Sam. What would Uncle Al have to say? Just his
usual bluff I suppose.

Time to wrap this rant up and send it off to the world... the rest of
the 1.42E-10 percenters.

- Tim http://bandtech.com/polysigned

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Tim Golden BandTech.com <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)

>> I thought about using the right hand rule for an example, but
>> it really isn't the same. The right hand rule works because we
>> prefer right-hander coordinate systems, which we do so that the
>> right-hand rule will work.

> I don't believe that this is an accurate analysis of the right hand
> rule of electromagnetism. I do agree that convention is involved,
> however the convention is that of what a positive current is and of
> what polarity a magnetic field takes.

Well, it has to be consistent all the way through.

So, yes, if you point some direction in space with one hand, say
that a proton is moving that direction, point another direction,
and say that is the B vector direction, and ask which way the force
is, then, yes the right hand rule does it.

Assuming that you have a good way to define positive charge,
how do you describe the sign for a magnetic field? You have to
be careful not to get into a circular argument.

If instead I tell you that there is a proton moving in the X direction,
a magnetic field in the Y direction, and ask which direction the
force is, you might say +Z. But then if I have a left-handed coordinate
system it is -Z. That goes back to the definition of cross product,
which also comes from the right hand rule.

The physics is that currents the same direction have an attractive
force, and opposite direction a repulsive force, but that doesn't
give a sign to the right (or left) hand rule.

> I think that one way into some scrutiny of the right hand rule is to
> admit that it does not state any law of intensity such as the
> reciprocal square law (1/[rr]) so that we don't have any quality as to
> the intensity and the distribution of the magnetic field around a
> current carrying straight wire which is otherwise unimpeded.

If you haven't read it, I recommend the last chapter of Feynman's
"Lectures on Physics" volume 1. The question answered in the
chapter is how to explain to a Martian which side is left.

--glen

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 10, 2:00 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)

The radio waves coming from Jupiter are easily detected. But no-one
would be
fooled into thinking that Jupiter is a pulsar, but everyone in the
physics and astronomy
community are easily fooled into thinking that pulsars are different
from a scaled
up Jupiter.

With Saturn and its Rings, we easily can see that gravity is a fake
force and that rigid-body-rotation
must require gravity to be EM-gravity. So when we scale up Saturn and
its rings as
rigid body rotation, we expect to find in the Cosmos, more examples of
rigid body rotation
and we do not have to look far to see barred spiral galaxies and the
barr as rigid body
rotation, or the fact that entire groups of galaxies have rigid body
rotation.

So we ask ourselves, how does Jupiter form those radio waves of pulsar
quality radio waves?
The answer lies in the fact that EM-gravity is what holds bodies
together and what causes
bodies to revolve around one another as a electric current flows
around a loop of wire.

Pulsars in stars are scaled up Jupiters. I am sure that the spin on
axis of these pulsar stars has
something to do with the pulsation.

Now there is another phenomenon in physics and astronomy that lacks a
proper and correct
explanation, and it is quasars. So we want to properly and correctly
explain quasars with our
new found understanding and wisdom. Since the Saturn helps us to
understand what gravity is
and since Jupiter helps us to understand what pulsars are, we
naturally ask whether the Sun
helps us to understand what quasars are. I believe the Sun starts us
on the correct path of explanation for it was reported in the last
century the 20th century that missing neutrinos from the Sun
occurred, and about 1/3 were missing.

When we understand that the Maxwell Equations need to be 6 equations
and thus 6 independent
subatomic particles as force carriers must exist. That we have proton,
antiproton, electron, antielectron, and photon, neutrino. There is a
asymmetry there unless we speculate that the photon is
anti to that of the neutrino. The 6 Maxwell Equations are perfectly
symmetrical if the neutrino was
the antiphoton of the photon. Now prior physics history, with the 4
Maxwell Equations, it was thought that those 4 Maxwell Equations had
asymmetry of the two Gauss laws and of the Faraday versus Ampere/
Maxwell law. But that was naive thinking on the part of those looking
for asymmetry of the 4 old Maxwell Equations. They mistook asymmetry
for that of "independent equation". Consider for a moment that the two
Gauss laws of the Maxwell Equations, consider if they were
asymmetrical and that a monopole exists. If you consider that, then
you can drop one of the Gauss laws because the other is derivable from
the one not dropped. So in Old Physics, they just lacked the
commonsense
of what a mathematician knows and understands about independent axioms
and equivalent axioms.
So if there exists a monopole, then we can drop the one Gauss equation
because the other Gauss equation the Coulomb law will derive the
Monopole law. The same can be said of the Faraday law
versus the Ampere/Maxwell law because if you imagine them to be
asymmetrical then one of them
is superfluous for the other can derive the dropped one. So in Old
Physics, the 4 Maxwell Equations
were symmetrical because they were independent of one another. But if
we add on the 2 new Maxwell Equations of the Lenz law and the Dirac
Equation we spoil or ruin that symmetry if we cannot have
the neutrino as the antiphoton. So with the 6 Maxwell Equations, we do
come into a Asymmetry with the problem of the photon and neutrino. If
the neutrino is the antiparticle of the photon, then the 6
Maxwell equations are now, again, symmetrical.

It is this neutrino as antiphoton, that I suspect, explains what
quasars are and explains why the Sun has missing 1/3 of its neutrino
population. Those 1/3 missing neutrinos coming out of the Sun
annihilate with a photon producing a more energetic photon. So has
anyone recorded the wavelength a strange wavelength of energetic
photons from the Sun that should not be there?

If the above is correct, then we should also see "halos" around large
stars and the recent Hubble telescope in space, I believe reported
pictures of many bright stars with "halo rings".

Also reported recently was Supernova events in which the neutrinos
were delayed. This delayed
neutrinos is counter to the recent CERN report of superluminal
neutrinos, because, if CERN is correct,
they would have missed the supernova neutrinos altogether, but
instead, those supernova neutrinos
were delayed. Now I do not remember whether those supernova neutrino
were observed in full or whether there there missing lot of those
neutrinos. If there was a missing fraction of 1/3 of those Supernova
neutrinos and if there was an increase in a class of photons, then I
think we have the
explanation as neutrinos annihilating with photons to create energetic
photons.

So the explanation of quasars, I suspect, is that quasars are the
annihilation of neutrinos with photons that creates a energetic
photon. The center of galaxies would be the prime territory to look
for massive
annihilation of neutrinos with photons.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/9/2012 11:19 PM, John Polasek wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:16:34 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2012 10:40 AM, John Polasek wrote:

>> Again you are insisting on iron cored transformers.

>> Obviously in the real world this can't always be true.

> Not at all. I was proving that the medium of transfer is in the
> magnetic field provided by the iron plus the vacuum mu0(1+X) and not
> by some hypothetical electrical "rash" provided by jostling electrons.

Isn't the magnetic field in the iron provided by "jostling" electrons?

>> Now switch to an RF type air cored transformer. Now the flux through the
>> secondary loop VERY MUCH depends upon the path. Volts/turn very much
>> depends on path.

> Yes, we assign a "coupling coefficient" only determinable by trial,
> after which we will detect k*Vn x N turns [volts] which satisfies the
> theory.

Again you keep using engineering approximations and pretending it's
diehard theory. The above statement is true ONLY if each new "turn"
takes EXACTLY the same path as the one before it. Which is obviously
physically impossible. Sure it's good enough for engineering, but
doesn't rate as a "theory" now, does it?

>>>> Your "theory" falls apart.
> Not.

> So. :-)

>> Again I repeat!
>>>> What is relevant
>>>> is the E field outside any current source. Which is to say the force
>>>> upon any charge placed at any position about the current source.

> The "current source" is in the primary winding.

Provided the secondary is open and there is no current there.

>The back emf appears
> in this winding, resisting an inrush of current approximating V/0.
> What position would you select to place your test charge "about the
> current source" (primary) to detect and measure the E field?

The Current source induces an E field EVERYWHERE about it including
INSIDE the current source wire! Hence it creates "back EMF". You can
place the test charge ANYWHERE about the current source to measure the E
field. It's a REAL E field that puts forces on charges! (but NOT a
static E field as from fixed charges).

> Physics is all about units; the numbers are for mathematicians and
> numerology. eps0 = 8.8e-12 F/m has definite meaning, for one thing in
> calibrating capacitors.
> I admit this facet is all but ignored in E&M tutelage, but I read a
> paper from a big quantum mechanics establishment that pleaded for some
> relief from E&M to help them out of their little 5-variable cage, but

> which expressed doubt that these E& M coefficients were even taken
> seriously.

While units do not change reality, it nevertheless is an interesting
topic that is usually neglected.

> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0131
> The quantum vacuum at the foundations of classical electrodynamics
> G Leuchs, A S Villar, L L Sánchez-Soto; Max Planck Institut fur die
> Physik des Lichts
> Applied Physics B, Volume: 100 , Issue: 1 (2010); Springer-Verlag
> I have a paper answering their questions, just haven't tried to
> publish.

I'll have to give those papers a peer.

[John Polasek]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:30:57 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"

<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 1/9/2012 11:19 PM, John Polasek wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:16:34 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
>> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2012 10:40 AM, John Polasek wrote:
>
>>> Again you are insisting on iron cored transformers.
>>> Obviously in the real world this can't always be true.
>
>> Not at all. I was proving that the medium of transfer is in the
>> magnetic field provided by the iron plus the vacuum mu0(1+X) and not
>> by some hypothetical electrical "rash" provided by jostling electrons.
>
>Isn't the magnetic field in the iron provided by "jostling" electrons?
>
>>> Now switch to an RF type air cored transformer. Now the flux through the
>>> secondary loop VERY MUCH depends upon the path. Volts/turn very much
>>> depends on path.
>
>> Yes, we assign a "coupling coefficient" only determinable by trial,
>> after which we will detect k*Vn x N turns [volts] which satisfies the
>> theory.
>
>Again you keep using engineering approximations and pretending it's
>diehard theory. The above statement is true ONLY if each new "turn"
>takes EXACTLY the same path as the one before it. Which is obviously
>physically impossible. Sure it's good enough for engineering, but
>doesn't rate as a "theory" now, does it?

It has nothing to do with path. All that is required is that both
windings surround the same flux volume and then there will be a 1:1
transfer of voltage. A bifilar winding comes closest.

>>>>> Your "theory" falls apart.
>> Not.
>
> > So. :-)
>
>>> Again I repeat!
>>>>> What is relevant
>>>>> is the E field outside any current source. Which is to say the force
>>>>> upon any charge placed at any position about the current source.
>
>> The "current source" is in the primary winding.
>
>Provided the secondary is open and there is no current there.
>
>>The back emf appears
>> in this winding, resisting an inrush of current approximating V/0.
>> What position would you select to place your test charge "about the
>> current source" (primary) to detect and measure the E field?
>
>The Current source induces an E field EVERYWHERE about it including
>INSIDE the current source wire! Hence it creates "back EMF". You can
>place the test charge ANYWHERE about the current source to measure the E
>field. It's a REAL E field that puts forces on charges! (but NOT a
>static E field as from fixed charges).

Would a charged pith ball whiz along the helix of the wires? Give me a
gedanken.

>
>> Physics is all about units; the numbers are for mathematicians and
>> numerology. eps0 = 8.8e-12 F/m has definite meaning, for one thing in
>> calibrating capacitors.
>> I admit this facet is all but ignored in E&M tutelage, but I read a
>> paper from a big quantum mechanics establishment that pleaded for some
>> relief from E&M to help them out of their little 5-variable cage, but
>> which expressed doubt that these E& M coefficients were even taken
>> seriously.
>
>While units do not change reality, it nevertheless is an interesting
>topic that is usually neglected.

I regard them as sensitivity coefficients e.g eps0 = @D/@E;
D = E[Vm]*epso[C/V*m] = C/m^2 since farad = coul/volt

>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0131
>> The quantum vacuum at the foundations of classical electrodynamics

>> G Leuchs, A S Villar, L L S�nchez-Soto; Max Planck Institut fur die

>> Physik des Lichts
>> Applied Physics B, Volume: 100 , Issue: 1 (2010); Springer-Verlag
>> I have a paper answering their questions, just haven't tried to
>> publish.
>
>I'll have to give those papers a peer.

John Polasek

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 10, 10:38 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu>
wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag Tim Golden BandTech.com <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
(snipped)

>
> > I think that one way into some scrutiny of the right hand rule is to
> > admit that it does not state any law of intensity such as the
> > reciprocal square law (1/[rr]) so that we don't have any quality as to
> > the intensity and the distribution of the magnetic field around a
> > current carrying straight wire which is otherwise unimpeded.
>
> If you haven't read it, I recommend the last chapter of Feynman's
> "Lectures on Physics" volume 1. The question answered in the
> chapter is how to explain to a Martian which side is left.
>
> --glen

I am always hopeful that when someone is talking about physics, that
some words
or ideas will emerge that gets me further along the path of progress.

What I am looking for at the moment, is how to make the neutrino the
antiphoton,
so that in a meeting, the two annihilate and what emerges is a more
energetic photon.
This would then explain in the best possible manner, what quasars are,
and explain
missing neutrinos from the Sun.

So looking at Glen's post of the issue of "left versus right"

We set up the Lenz law by saying the photon is a transverse wave of
propagation motion
forward (out of the picture straight into the eye of the reader) and
the E-field as y axis and B-field as -x axis as this picture shows:

Photon

E
|
|
B________|

So that to Glen, the Lenz law would have the photon defined as that
transverse wave and we can
apply the right hand rule.

So would the antiphoton, the neutrino be this picture:

__________B
|
|
|
|
E

So would the left hand rule apply?

But more important, how can we set up those two transverse waves,
keeping the Lenz law, and where a neutrino meeting a photon annihilate
such that the resultant is a more energetic photon?

When a antielectron meets an electron the annihilation is simple to
recount in that it comes out as
photon energy, but when photon annihilates with neutrino, we have a
tough problem.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 10, 11:57 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snipped)

>

Perhaps there is some easy relief for me in all of this chore of
making the neutrino the antiphoton. We know that in making the
positron the antielectron we reverse all the characteristics of the
electron, so that we reverse the charge to be + (positive) rather than
- (negative), and we reverse all the other characteristics.

So I think I am committing an error in thinking that the neutrino is a
transverse wave if I have to reverse the characteristics of photons.
So what would be the reverse of a transverse wave? Would it be a
longitudinal wave? Or perhaps a torsion wave?

If the neutrino were a torsion wave or a longitudinal wave, then I
could more easily
see how in the annihilation of a neutrino with a photon would yield a
more energetic photon. But would I have to concede to the idea that
the neutrino then would be a E-field and no B field or vice versa? And
in the annihilation, the energy of the neutrino is taken up and
absorbed by the photon, making it a more energetic photon?

Seems to me that perhaps there are clues of experiments already
performed on neutrinos, for if the above is true in part or whole,
then someone playing around with neutrino beams should have and could
have noticed an increase in ambient photons having more energy than
what is normal or usual. Do we get stepped up energetic photons
whenever we create beams of neutrinos?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now what I need to do is see if it is possible to have the neutrino be
a longitudinal wave.
I need this because I want to see if I can make the neutrino be a
antiphoton and when
the two meet, they annihilate and form a new more energetic photon as
the end result.

I know of nothing in old physics that preempts the neutrino from being
a longitudinal wave.

So what I need now, is an experiment that shows us that a longitudinal
wave simultaneous
to a transverse wave can yield a more energetic end result wave.

In my youth I had some guitars, and like most people wanted to play
good music, however,
I quickly learned that I was tone-deaf, meaning I could never tune a
guitar, for they all sounded
different. But I did learn something from that experience. I noticed
that as I was tuning that I could create a transverse wave on a guitar
string by plucking the string, but I could also create a longitudinal
wave on that same string by making the string more taut with the
tuning mechanism. So I had
two waves on that same string, a transverse wave and a longitudinal
wave which combined, yielded
a overall higher frequency or more energetic wave. So if we can have a
experiment that gives us
a transverse and longitudinal wave that ends up with a higher energy
wave, then there is every reason to think that light as a transverse
wave can have a neutrino as a longitudinal wave and when combined
produce a higher energy photon.

How can we picture this longitudinal neutrino wave?

Perhaps like this:

B
| | | | |
___________>E

| | | | |


Whereas the light-wave is this:

B_________
|
|
|
|
E

So that when the two waves combine, they increase both the B and the E
fields and increase
the energy.

Now is there any sort of evidence that neutrinos are longitudinal
waves? Well I think, indirectly there
is evidence, in that photons have a difficult time moving through
dense matter, whereas neutrinos move through matter as if it were not
there at all. And we know that sound waves move through
dense matter, and sound waves are longitudinal, and that the dense
matter is a advantage to sound
waves.

So I do not know of any law or idea in old physics that preempts the
possibility of neutrinos being
longitudinal waves, but see that prospect as very much enticing in
making neutrinos the antiphoton.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 11, 3:13 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Alright, this sort of reminds me of the science geology in its past
history of the
Uniformitarian Principle where you cannot invoke superstition or magic
or supernatural forces, but that geology can be explained with the
ordinary forces
going on Earth. Likewise, we need only look towards phenomenon going
on in the Solar System with the occasional scaling up to learn about
astronomy. So that we see Saturn and its Ring and we thus learn fully
that gravity cannot be Newtonian nor can it be General Relativity, but
that gravity must be EM-gravity to give us rigid body rotation.

Next, we look at Jupiter and see that Jupiter gives off strong radio
signals and realize Jupiter as EM-gravity is a radio station and thus
a miniature pulsar, and we scale up Jupiter to the size of a star and
we thus explain pulsars.

Next, we look at the Sun and realize there are 1/3 or more neutrinos
missing from the Sun and we realize that neutrinos are the antiphoton
and when a neutrino meets a photon, they annihilate and produce a far
more energetic photon such as a X-ray or gamma ray, and as we scale up
the Sun to that of a very bright star we thus explain quasars, or
scale them up to a galactic-center to explain quasars.

In Old Physics, with their Big Bang nonsense and their Standard Model
circus fakery they rambled out and onto superstition and supernatural,
for they have to come up with silly notions of black-holes, much like
geology before Uniformitarian Principle
saying that Moses parted the waters, and Earth and its processes
created by some supernatural god. Neutron stars, and black-holes in
physics is a return to supernatural and deities in physics.

When we see that natural and physical processes explain all of geology
on Earth, we must and should emulate that natural and physical
processes to the Solar System and then scale up to explain pulsars and
quasars. We must never entertain silly and unnatural processes such as
a neutron star or a black-hole when we have natural processes to
explain phenomenon.

When we see Saturn and its Ring we instantly recognize that Newtonian
gravity and General Relativity are incompetent as a force to give
Rings for Saturn. And we do not fall victim to silly patches such as
invoking dark matter and dark energy surrounding Saturn to allow
Saturn to have its Ring. Instead, we do what is the job of a real
scientist, a real physicist, for we thus recognize that Saturn's Ring
can exist only if gravity is EM-gravity, like a phonograph record disc
spins in rigid body rotation because it is EM force spinning the
record.

Likewise, we see Jupiter as a radio station and thus realize that
scaling up Jupiter we explain pulsar stars.

Likewise, we see missing 1/3 of the neutrinos from the Sun and we thus
figure out how a neutrino annihilates with a photon to create a more
energetic photon and thus we explain quasars.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 11, 3:40 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 3:13 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>

(snipped)

>
> > In my youth I had some guitars, and like most people wanted to play
> > good music, however,
> > I quickly learned that I was tone-deaf, meaning I could never tune a
> > guitar, for they all sounded
> > different. But I did learn something from that experience. I noticed
> > that as I was tuning that I could create a transverse wave on a guitar
> > string by plucking the string, but I could also create a longitudinal
> > wave on that same string by making the string more taut with the
> > tuning mechanism. So I had
> > two waves on that same string, a transverse wave and a longitudinal
> > wave which combined, yielded
> > a overall higher frequency or more energetic wave. So if we can have a
> > experiment that gives us
> > a transverse and longitudinal wave that ends up with a higher energy
> > wave, then there is every reason to think that light as a transverse
> > wave can have a neutrino as a longitudinal wave and when combined
> > produce a higher energy photon.
>
> > How can we picture this longitudinal neutrino wave?
>
> > Perhaps like this:
>
> > B
> > |  |   |    |   |
> > ___________>E
>
> > |  |   |    |   |
>
> > Whereas the light-wave is this:
>
> > B_________
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   E
>

Alright, I am going to try my hardest to argue that the neutrino is a
longitudinal wave and thus the antiphoton, and that when a neutrino
meets with a photon, they annihilate and produce a more
energetic photon.

So starting off, I need at least one case example experiment in which
I have a longitudinal wave
annihilating with a transverse wave to produce a more energetic wave
resultant. The logic is this is
clear, for if I cannot find such a experiment, then the hopes are off
and dashed in making the case
for the neutrino as a longitudinal wave.

I believe I have found such an experiment in the guitar string listed
above in that earlier post. If you take a guitar string and pull on it
transversely and release, you have a transverse wave and then increase
the tension on the string by tuning it, you simultaneously have a
longitudinal wave. Unless I am wrong on that interpretation, we have a
transverse wave simultaneous with a longitudinal wave.

So if that is correct, that we have proof of longitudinal wave
simultaneous to a transverse wave, the case then can be made that EM
must have a longitudinal wave simultaneous to a transverse wave,
because all of physics is reduced to EM would demand that be the case.

Can I think of some other examples of longitudinal waves simultaneous
to transverse waves? I think so in the case of a ripple on the water
surface is a transverse wave, and not add a sound wave and we
increase the wave of the water ripple.

So if we demand physics to be unified to one force and that force is
EM, and where we have demonstrations of longitudinal waves
simultaneous to transverse waves, implies that we must have
such case examples in EM. We thus infer that the neutrino is a
longitudinal wave itself to be the antiphoton wave, since a photon is
a transverse wave.

Is there any existing proof in physics that the neutrino is a
longitudinal wave that annihilates with the photon? None that I can
think of at this moment. But a proof would come in, if someone found
that the
Sun emits more energetic photons than what is called for in the
Standard Model. I am not aware of any reports on the EM emissions of
the Sun as being overly abundant in energetic photons.

I am aware in Astronomy of quasars which are overly abundant high
energy photons. If we can work out what type of longitudinal wave the
neutrino is, and what the annihilation process would be, and if that
matches the quasar photons, then we would have strong evidence that
neutrinos are longitudinal
waves that annihilate with photons.

Another evidence would be in Supernova events, for I believe there
were reports of a delay and missing amount of neutrinos which may have
been due to neutrino annihilation.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 12, 12:16 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 3:40 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)

>
> Another evidence would be in Supernova events, for I believe there
> were reports of a delay and missing amount of neutrinos which may have
> been due to neutrino annihilation.
>

Alright, I did a little exploring around of what was reported of
neutrinos in supernova:

--- quoting Wikipedia on SN1987A ---


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN1987A#Neutrino_emissions

Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A
reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate
neutrino observatories. This is likely due to neutrino emission (which
occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of
visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the
stellar surface).[8] At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II
detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5
antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds.

--- end quoting ---

That entry is somewhat misleading, for if my memory is correct, the
first indications of a supernova
event of 1987A was that of X-ray information came in first, and then
later came in the neutrino indications, and then three hours later
came the visible light.

So then we would have to discount altogether the recent CERN report of
superluminal neutrinos, because if SN1987A has X-rays appearing before
neutrinos would simply end the discussion of
superluminal neutrinos for the X-rays were faster than the neutrinos.

But here the question I have, is whether those X-rays were formed in
large part due to neutrinos
annihilating with photons to produce X-ray photons?

So that in the SN1987A event, can we see the production of neutrinos,
for which 1/2 of those neutrinos annihilated with photons to produce X-
rays?

I need to explore those questions with the data of that supernova.

Perhaps that supernova can resolve the CERN claim of superluminal
neutrinos and also my
question of whether neutrinos are longitudinal waves that annihilate
with photons.

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

On Jan 12, 3:08 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 12:16 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 3:40 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> (snipped)
>
> > Another evidence would be in Supernova events, for I believe there
> > were reports of a delay and missing amount of neutrinos which may have
> > been due to neutrino annihilation.
>
> Alright, I did a little exploring around of what was reported of
> neutrinos in supernova:

Hi Archimedes. I do respect your neutrino research and have been
thinking it over a bit. My first thinking was that these neutrinos are
so intangible as to be even more obscure than electromagnetic effects.
If there is no alteration in the usual physics under a heavy neutrino
flow (what is the density difference between background neutrino flow
and a burst?) then entertaining the neutrino as an ether type of
medium is more difficult to prove.

I have not read your long series of posts and am just using this last
to which I have come to a quick response that seems quite interesting:

To what degree can an early neutrino detection in fact indicate
that light scattering is taking place? Could it be that our usual
figure of c is in fact a light scattering system? This then gets us to
the photon as instantaneous through a back door perhaps. Within
Einstein's own system the photon in fact ages zero seconds from
emission to reception regardless of the distance propagated.

What it seems is needed is an alternative to relativity theory. This
means that we may be able to question the relative reference frame
itself. A simple lead in to this method is to consider that if all
objects about us are subject to the same acceleration that the
detection of that acceleration will not be possible. Thus actions at
large distance go unseen, for we and the objects about us are subject
to the same acceleration field. This is a peculiar state, and we may
as well admit that we are subject to all sorts of instantaneous
acceleration so long as that field is not locally produced.
Experiments across large distance will yield measures of the source of
acceleration, but a huge filtering problem will exist if we have
multiple sources. The possibility that we may one day look up at the
night sky and point to the origin is the sort of reasoning that we
might consider, and some recent experiments do identify a preferential
direction. Then upon filtering out those effects what if another
exists?
Could it be that the proper coordinate system has multiple origins?
This would be a far easier system to observe and to resolve than one
with multiple realities(which seems to be a leading alternative).

I don't mean to lead you astray, but perhaps these thoughts will help
you to explore and fill out the areas of your brain that you are
activating. This process is crucial I believe and goes unpracticed by
most sitting professionals. Their goal was to get a piece of official
paper whereas ours is to get another piece of blank paper.

- Tim http://bandtech.com

> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 12, 10:45 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 12, 3:08 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>

(snipped)

>
> Hi Archimedes. I do respect your neutrino research and have been
> thinking it over a bit. My first thinking was that these neutrinos are

Thanks, but I am not far along in that research, only have a
longitudinal wave
for the neutrino, but must now figure out how to attach the right hand
rule to
the photon transverse wave and then configure the longitudinal wave to
annihilate
with the photon wave and create a more energetic photon as a end
result.

> so intangible as to be even more obscure than electromagnetic effects.
> If there is no alteration in the usual physics under a heavy neutrino
> flow (what is the density difference between background neutrino flow
> and a burst?) then entertaining the neutrino as an ether type of
> medium is more difficult to prove.
>

I rather think that Space requires a minimum of what Faraday called
"lines of force"
and that neutrinos are what fill out Space, or make Space. Tim, the
major difference
between Old Physics and New Physics is that Old Physics wants Space to
be a vaccuum
and where matter/mass is like hanging christmas tree ornaments in an
empty space.

New Physics has Space as a dual rival and is teaming with waves and
particles that compose
space. In New Physics, we have the idea that Proton equals Electron +
Space, once the charge
sign is removed. In other words 938 MeV of the proton equals (0.5 MeV
+ 937.5 MeV) for electron
with Space around it. So for each electron that exists in the Cosmos
there is 937.5 MeV represented
by neutrinos and positrons for Space component.

So the major difference between Old Physics and New Physics is that
New Physics treats Space as a
entity, not a vaccuum.

> I have not read your long series of posts and am just using this last
> to which I have come to a quick response that seems quite interesting:
>
>    To what degree can an early neutrino detection in fact indicate
> that light scattering is taking place? Could it be that our usual
> figure of c is in fact a light scattering system? This then gets us to
> the photon as instantaneous through a back door perhaps. Within
> Einstein's own system the photon in fact ages zero seconds from
> emission to reception regardless of the distance propagated.
>

I do not know, and would like for CERN with their recent superluminal
speed claim
for neutrinos to add radio waves to their neutrino beam and to measure
whether
they end up with unaccounted X-rays or gamma rays, by adding radio
waves to the
neutrino beam. If they find that X-rays or gamma rays are indeed
produced by adding
radio waves to a neutrino beam, then we have proof that neutrinos
annihilate with photons
yielding a more energetic photon.

> What it seems is needed is an alternative to relativity theory. This
> means that we may be able to question the relative reference frame

Sorry, I beg to differ. The reason Special Relativity theory is
bizarre is because the Cosmos
is one big atom for which it is composed of smaller atoms. So when I
put logic to
a fact that the Whole is the same as its parts, the science of physics
that emerges
in such a reality will have a theory of Special Relativity which is
the same as saying
the whole is the same as its parts. To mess around with Special
Relativity is to throw
out Maxwell Equations and here I have them as the axioms.

Tim, what you need to think of throwing out is crap like Big Bang,
black-holes, neutron stars,
dark matter, dark energy.

> itself. A simple lead in to this method is to consider that if all
> objects about us are subject to the same acceleration that the
> detection of that acceleration will not be possible. Thus actions at
> large distance go unseen, for we and the objects about us are subject
> to the same acceleration field. This is a peculiar state, and we may
> as well admit that we are subject to all sorts of instantaneous
> acceleration so long as that field is not locally produced.
> Experiments across large distance will yield measures of the source of
> acceleration, but a huge filtering problem will exist if we have
> multiple sources. The possibility that we may one day look up at the
> night sky and point to the origin is the sort of reasoning that we
> might consider, and some recent experiments do identify a preferential
> direction. Then upon filtering out those effects what if another
> exists?
> Could it be that the proper coordinate system has multiple origins?
> This would be a far easier system to observe and to resolve than one
> with multiple realities(which seems to be a leading alternative).
>
> I don't mean to lead you astray, but perhaps these thoughts will help
> you to explore and fill out the areas of your brain that you are
> activating. This process is crucial I believe and goes unpracticed by
> most sitting professionals. Their goal was to get a piece of official
> paper whereas ours is to get another piece of blank paper.
>

>  - Timhttp://bandtech.com

I need to find out what the sequence of reported events were for
SN1987A.
I believe this is an accurate description:

(1) first the explosion was spotted by light rays.
(2) minutes or a half hour later, after the light rays, was spotted
the neutrino flux
(3) lastly the halo formed around the exploded star was seen by
visible light.

Now I bring up the Pleiades stars because they are very bright with
halos, and about the only
thing brighter than these stars are supernova and quasars.

It is a fact of physics that is non quarrelable, no argument over,
that the strongest source of
energy is matter to antimatter annihilation. So that when we make EM
the only force in Nature
and we replace gravity with EM-gravity, we end up with a better
explanation for quasars, pulsars
as some form of EM where we have matter to antimatter annihilation.

In an Atom Totality, the cores of stars are likely to be positrons and
if enough are concentrated
in a Galaxy Center, then we have matter to antimatter annihilation. If
that annihilation is strong enough
we have a supernova.

We also would have annihilation of neutrinos with photons to give us
halos for the Pleiades stars and for the halo formed after SN1987A
exploded.

In Old Physics with their Big Bang, they concocted weird stuff like
neutron stars or black-holes, all of which relied on gravity as
producing pulsars and quasars and halos. In New Physics, we have an
easier time of explaining pulsars and quasars because we toss out
gravity and am using a stronger force-- EM which is 10^39 stronger, so
that to form a pulsar is very easy and to form quasars as
matter-antimatter annihilation or neutrino-photon annihilation are far
easier and believable.

So what I like for CERN to do, is see if their superluminal neutrino
speeds are just a repeat of the Alain Aspect experiment of the Bell
Inequality, only on a far larger scale than the Aspect experiment.
And secondly for CERN to sprinkle into that neutrino beam some radio
waves and see if they come out the other end of their travel as X-rays
or gamma rays.

Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

How can we picture this longitudinal neutrino wave?

> > Perhaps like this:

> > B
> > |  |   |    |   |
> > ___________>
> > |  |   |    |   |
E

Previously, for the neutrino, I had this:

> > B
> > |  |   |    |   |
> > ___________> E
> > |  |   |    |   |



> > Whereas the light-wave is this:
> > B_________
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   E

Alright, for the new readers, what I am trying to do is to make the
neutrino wave be an antiphoton
wave, so that a neutrino wave when meeting or encountering a photon
wave the two annihilate
such as in matter to antimatter annihilation, but where the end
product is a more energetic photon
that emerges and the neutrino ceases to exist.

So what I need to do is find how to build a antiphoton wave, and the
progress made so far is that
the neutrino must be a longitudinal wave and not a transverse wave.
And this makes a lot of sense because longitudinal waves go through
dense matter whereas transverse waves have difficulty.

And now my task is how do I arrange the components of a longitudinal
wave of E and B fields so that
they constructively interfer with the photon wave as they annihilate
and produce a more energetic photon wave.

My guess as shown above is that the E and B fields are not
perpendicular to one another but rather are at 0 and 180 degrees of
one another. Now this maybe the correct way of doing this construction
because if the E and B fields are 0 degrees rather than 90 degrees
would allow the neutrino spin 1/2 whereas the photon is spin 1.

[p.ki...@ic.ac.uk]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> They don't bother me at all, because I don't talk about one field
> component causing another.

But how would you write down an equation which described
how one thing caused another? (Along with any necessary
context or assumptions, such as a preferred time direction,
of course).


--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/13/2012 12:23 PM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>> They don't bother me at all, because I don't talk about one field
>> component causing another.
>
> But how would you write down an equation which described
> how one thing caused another? (Along with any necessary
> context or assumptions, such as a preferred time direction,
> of course).

Actually I was waiting for *your* answer to this
very question! (Didn't you indicate that you had
a solution, a few days ago?)

--
Jos

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 12, 10:45 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 12, 3:08 am, Archimedes Plutonium

(snipped)

>
>    To what degree can an early neutrino detection in fact indicate
> that light scattering is taking place? Could it be that our usual
> figure of c is in fact a light scattering system? This then gets us to
> the photon as instantaneous through a back door perhaps. Within
> Einstein's own system the photon in fact ages zero seconds from
> emission to reception regardless of the distance propagated.
>

First let me remark that my internet connection is now solved with the
competing
towers, so that I can be relaxed in reading responses and posts.

Hi Tim,

Let me backtrack to what Tim remarked above for it is an interesting
concern, this idea
of instantaneous speed and speed of light as maximum.

And also the reflection of Paul Kinsler in a post that remarks about
"cause and effect" if
fields were solo fields.

This gives me an opportunity to fill out and fill in some more on the
chapter of Superdeterminism,
a major ingredient of Quantum Mechanics Physics.

Both Tim and Paul push me into thinking about how physics can square
away with the notions of
instant speed and speeds of maximum of light speed. So if the world
has a maximum speed of
light, why ever consider instant speeds? Why consider "cause and
effect" as physics?

I could not discuss these ideas, unless I had at least one good
physics experiment to ground myself,
and I have that with the Bell Inequality and Aspect Experiment. More
important is that I have an
Atom Totality theory to ground the whole thing.

With the Bell Inequality, can we say that instantaneous speeds exist
that are faster than the speed of light? I would say no, in that such
is specifically what the Superdeterminism fixes, in that, for example,
we believe the speed of those CERN neutrinos is faster than light
because we "see them",
yet Superdeterminism of the Bell Inequality instantly changed the
measurement so that we think
it was faster than the speed of light. By our creating the neutrinos
in CERN and measuring them for
speed, we changed the experiment and must obey the Bell Inequality.

So I think, what we have here is that a signal can be faster than the
speed of light, but that a physical entity
cannot be faster than the speed of light, and by entity, I mean energy
or matter. The analogy is a scissors of
two light beams. So that the two light beams, each travelling no
faster than light were to close upon themselves like a scissors
closes, that the speed of that
closer is faster than the speed of light.

So what Tim was alluding to in that paragraph is the idea
that we can have scissors in space, such as the CERN
neutrino speeds. What I would call Faraday lines of force. So if Space
is composed of positrons and neutrinos as lines of force, and those
lines of force as standing waves of neutrinos, standing waves that
stretch across the entire Cosmos, so that if one were to create
neutrinos at CERN and measure their speeds elsewhere
that the measurement of faster than the speed of light was not really
faster than light speed, but was rather instead a measurement of the
signal speed (the so to speak scissor closing speed). So that the
creation of neutrinos in CERN caused a signal along the lines-of-force
to the measurement instruments of CERN to register neutrinos that had
been created, but are now
following the Bell Inequality of Superdeterminism, that it
looks as though they were faster than light, but in reality
had just been a signal speed along that lines-of-force.

So I think I may be able to add more to this Superdeterminism concept
in that Lines-of-Force are Cosmic standing waves and in the Bell
Inequality, speeds faster than light are nonexistent, but we are
easily fooled by signal speeds which can be faster than light.

Let me talk about Paul's concerns of "cause and effect"
for in the Atom Totality theory, we can more precisely define cause
and effect as never before in physics.

Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 13, 5:23 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > They don't bother me at all, because I don't talk about one field
> > component causing another.
>
> But how would you write down an equation which described
> how one thing caused another? (Along with any necessary
> context or assumptions, such as a preferred time direction,
> of course).
>
> --
> ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
> Dr. Paul Kinsler
> Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714

> Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org

> SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

I never drew in "cause and effect" into my physics books of Atom
Totality, but
Paul opens my eyes in that I need to do that.

Cause and Effect are rudimentary and fundamental ideas and physics
should be
the prime source to explain them, not philosophy or religion. I view
both philosophy
and religion as where science is too crude and not yet developed and
so we have
a flood of opinion and faith as to what is the inner workings, and not
until a phenomenon
passes tests of experiments and logic and reason does it become a
science.

Cause and effect have not really entered physics in a big way and it
should by now
enter physics in a big way. One of the troubles with the Big Bang is
that it lacks the
ability to enter "cause and effect", for we instantly ask, "What
caused the Big Bang".
Yet in an Atom Totality, we realize that the Plutonium Atom Totality
was caused by the
previous Uranium Atom Totality and the effects of that prior totality.

Now I realize that Paul makes the issue that you cannot have E-fields
or B-fields solo and
have cause and effect, but what I want to do is expand on cause and
effect for all of physics.

The easiest way of talking about cause and effect is not Physics but
rather Biology. What
caused human beings, and the answer is quickly Darwin Evolution of
apes down to humans
in a 10 million year time span. And Darwin Evolution will point to
things like Natural Selection,
genetic mutation, geographical isolation, etc etc. But Physics would
point to Bell Inequality
with Superdeterminism in that there is no free will. So can you have
Darwin Evolution yet
no free will? For in Superdeterminism, the human species was already
fated to become
regardless of Natural Selection. It was not luck or chance or
probability some 10 million years
ago that some apes would evolve into humans but predetermined to be
so. So the idea
of Superdeterminism asks questions about the concept of cause and
effect.

If we have Superdeterminism, do we still have cause and effect?

I suppose we better ask in the Double Slit Experiment, do we have
cause and effect, such that
the effect is not the cause? I think that is a bit tough of a
question. For it appears that cause
and effect have a time arrow involved, a 2nd law of thermodynamics
involved.

Now perhaps we can get the 2nd law of thermodynamics out of the Lenz's
law as not only the direction of current flow, but of the direction of
causes that end up with effects. So the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a
cause and effect law with an arrow of time, and the Lenz law is an
arrow of time.

The Double Slit Experiment is not about an arrow of time, but is about
particle versus wave duality. Can we say that some effects create a
cause? No, because effects come after a cause. In the Double
Slit Experiment, though, particle is coincident with wave.

So Duality is more primary than "cause and effect" which comes later
in physics. So that cause and effect are secondary features of Physics
and come after the primary features. So that the Gauss's laws of
Maxwell Equations have no arrow of time, but when we get to the
Faraday, Ampere/Maxwell,
and Lenz law, especially Lenz law we have a time arrow come into the
picture.

In the Faraday law we have the moving bar magnet as the cause, with
the current as the effect. In the Ampere/Maxwell law we have the
moving current as cause with the magnetic field as effect. So already
we have an arrow of time in Physics with the Maxwell equations and
thus we should be able to
fetch what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is out of the Maxwell
equations. And I suspect what will happen is that the 2nd law of
thermodynamics is false, in that the Universe is not trending to
disorder
but rather trending towards more Space in proportion to Mass/matter.

So if instead of entropy and disorder, the Universe is trending
towards conversion of mass/matter into
more Space.

So that within the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the concept of "cause
versus effect" but the 2nd law
is not a true physics law, and that the true physics law that covers
the 2nd law of thermodynamics are the Maxwell equations, the 6 Maxwell
Equations that include Lenz law and Dirac's equation.

So in New Physics, we define more precisely, cause and effect as the
arrow of time within the Maxwell Equations, and where we see that the
trend of the Cosmos is the conversion of more mass/
matter into that of more Space. When a neutron decays into a hydrogen
atom with a neutrino, the neutrino increases the Space of the Cosmos
with one more Line-of-Force of a standing wave in the
Cosmos.

Sorry, it looks as though "cause and effect" actually become more
confusing in an Atom Totality, although given a more precise
understanding. It is easy to see that a meteor falling into the ocean
is
going to cause a tidal wave and effect cities on the shores, but much
more difficult to see that
neutrinos produced at CERN and measured kilometers away are going to
cause a Bell Inequality
with the effect of superdeterminism.

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

On Jan 12, 4:27 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:45 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 3:08 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Hi Archimedes. I do respect your neutrino research and have been
> > thinking it over a bit. My first thinking was that these neutrinos are
>
> Thanks, but I am not far along in that research, only have a
> longitudinal wave
> for the neutrino, but must now figure out how to attach the right hand
> rule to
> the photon transverse wave and then configure the longitudinal wave to
> annihilate
> with the photon wave and create a more energetic photon as a end
> result.

Since you are so fond of multipost methods I will cut off this one
right here and challenge you on this longitudinal wave. I submit that
the only environment that will in fact entertain such a nondissipatory
wave is either a 1D environment or perhaps even just a 0D environment.
The standard environment of 3D longitudinal wave is an
oversimplification, though it may well be that Maxwell was convincing
in its usage. These waves do in fact not arise, and something more
akin to Snell or some such Newtonian era analysis is still appropriate
to the emanation of what we call radiant energy from a source. I do
these days hesitate to overuse Maxwell as a basis. To what degree is
light pure and simple? Have we overcomplicated light theory? By the
time we work up to polarization and such then just how many qualities
does the photon have? Is the continuous-discrete nature of light truly
satisfactory or have we merely gulped down particle wave duality
without looking back? This is now the time to look back on these
puzzles, and I would say that your own neutrino investigations are
valid as a means of taking that fresh look. These neutrinos are not
unlike light, and light does in fact pass through the surface of
objects. We may take a piece of steel and claim it to be opaque, but
upon study of its texture it becomes blatantly clear that light does
pass through its surface. These depths of color; for lack of better
words; are very real and do compose much of the quality of things
about us. Yes, surface maps are nice, as is the 'solid object' which
we presume in Physics 101, but these things themselves are misnomers,
and even diamond will submit to its nonsolid qualities. Steel much
more so...

Keep going Archimedes.

- Tim

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 14, 1:50 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)

>
> So if instead of entropy and disorder, the Universe is trending
> towards conversion of mass/matter into
> more Space.
>
> So that within the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the concept of "cause
> versus effect" but the 2nd law
> is not a true physics law, and that the true physics law that covers
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics are the Maxwell equations, the 6 Maxwell
> Equations that include Lenz law and Dirac's equation.
>

I said something misleading there, in that the 2nd law is not a fake
but rather
a misunderstood and misinterpreted law with its entropy, for entropy
does not
translate into "disorder" but something of electricity and magnetism.
So we retain
the second law and see that it fits as a subset into the Lenz's law of
EM.

Notice how the 2nd law of thermodynamics as what Clausius defined as
that of
heat flowing from a hot body always to a cooler body and never the
reverse.

Now look at Lenz's law that a current flows in the direction such that
the magnetic
lines of force flow opposite one another.

So can we see how the Lenz's law becomes a more general 2nd law of
thermodynamics?

Let us rewrite the Lenz's law as if we are writing about heat flow. So
that the direction
of heat flow (current flow) is such that the heat into heat is an
opposition (magnetic field
opposes magnetic field).

Now can we write the mathematical forms of entropy and of Lenz's law
such that the math forms
are the same?

dS = -k dP

And for Lenz's law we have:

E = -N dB

So in other words, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was a subset of the
Lenz's law in EM. And the mistake or misunderstanding was the
interpretation of what entropy was. It is not a Cosmic degradation of
energy, or disorder, but rather instead, only a transformation of
energy/matter into that
of Space. And when we couple that with the Dirac new radioactivities
what we see is a constant increase in order of more mass/matter and
more Space. So that the Cosmos is not decaying into disorder, but
rather is growing and increasing in order for mass/matter and
simultaneously increasing in order of Space.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a subset of Lenz's law of EM.

Now the 1st law of thermodynamics as well as the Conservation of
Energy are violated by Dirac's New
Radioactivity, because particles come into existence, but the 2nd law
is a subset of Lenz's law. In the Maxwell Equations, we see there is
no Conservation of Energy.

Now I have to think about that some more because the question arises
of whether the Maxwell Equations with Lenz law and Dirac Equation as
the 5th and 6th equations, whether they support Dirac's new
radioactivity which is a violation of Conservation of Energy. I have
to research that question.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 14, 4:58 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 12, 4:27 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

(snipped)

>
> Since you are so fond of multipost methods I will cut off this one
> right here and challenge you on this longitudinal wave. I submit that

I need to organize these books as best I can.

> the only environment that will in fact entertain such a nondissipatory
> wave is either a 1D environment or perhaps even just a 0D environment.

From what I have seen so far, water waves can be both longitudinal and
transverse.
A tsunami, one report, says it is longitudinal.

But a pulled guitar string can accommodate both transverse and
longitudinal simultaneously.
So if Nature has fine examples, then no reason for photons and
neutrinos to have longitudinal
and transverse.

> The standard environment of 3D longitudinal wave is an
> oversimplification, though it may well be that Maxwell was convincing
> in its usage. These waves do in fact not arise, and something more
> akin to Snell or some such Newtonian era analysis is still appropriate
> to the emanation of what we call radiant energy from a source. I do
> these days hesitate to overuse Maxwell as a basis. To what degree is
> light pure and simple? Have we overcomplicated light theory? By the
> time we work up to polarization and such then just how many qualities
> does the photon have? Is the continuous-discrete nature of light truly
> satisfactory or have we merely gulped down particle wave duality
> without looking back? This is now the time to look back on these
> puzzles, and I would say that your own neutrino investigations are
> valid as a means of taking that fresh look. These neutrinos are not
> unlike light, and light does in fact pass through the surface of
> objects. We may take a piece of steel and claim it to be opaque, but
> upon study of its texture it becomes blatantly clear that light does
> pass through its surface. These depths of color; for lack of better
> words; are very real and do compose much of the quality of things
> about us. Yes, surface maps are nice, as is the 'solid object' which
> we presume in Physics 101, but these things themselves are misnomers,
> and even diamond will submit to its nonsolid qualities. Steel much
> more so...
>
> Keep going Archimedes.
>
>  - Tim

I can keep going on the book writing, but as for this topic of
neutrinos being
longitudinal waves that annihilate with light-waves to yield more
energetic
light-waves needs to be experimentally verified. No point in spending
too much
time on a speculation or conjecture when that time is better spent on
experiment to actually verify. So I need CERN to look into neutrino
annihilation
with photons, where we sprinkle in some photons into a neutrino beam
and
see if we register some X-rays or gamma-rays at the other end.

I probably run out of steam on this chapter 14 of Space and should
start to summarize.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:595e47f3-0d39-40f7...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 14, 4:58 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 12, 4:27 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
>
> Since you are so fond of multipost methods I will cut off this one
> right here and challenge you on this longitudinal wave. I submit that

> the only environment that will in fact entertain such a nondissipatory
> wave is either a 1D environment or perhaps even just a 0D environment.

<From what I have seen so far, water waves can be both longitudinal and
transverse.
<A tsunami, one report, says it is longitudinal.

You should also know the "lateral" waves.
They were discovered by Faraday in 1846.
Such waves are emitted by the two sources with the same frequency and
amplitudes but not in phase. Near the source they are longitudinal. Next are
lateral.
Such waves are emitted by the Hertz dipole.
For Faraday was obvious that the light waves are lateral. For me too.

Which one do you prefer?
S*

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/10/2012 3:43 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 6:37 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
>> Yes that was the question. Will you now give
>> us the answer according to your belief? (Or
>> is there some doubt creeping up? Please, don't
>> betray Jefimenko! The currents create the
>> fields which then _must_ still be there! Show
>> some strength in facing your interrogators!)
>
> Actually there is no "must".

Like there is no "must" in the E and B fields causing
each other. Wasn't thast pointed out by Jefimenko?

> ... My "belief" here is irrelevant, but the person who does
> (well did!) believe in both fields still existing was the late professor
> Hooper.

Why should his belief be more relevant than yours?
You are too modest.. A scientist should be arrogant.

> ... Basically he set up two magnets with a wire between them where
> the fields cancel to zero. But then if you move one of the magnets
> (which supposedly gives qV x B forces for THAT field) you get a voltage.

Also the total field is no longer zero. He creates
a dB/dt.

> Hence the argument that even though a gaussmeter asserts that there are
> NO magnetic fields in the region of the wire, the relative motion shows
> that the fields still exist

But they were no longer zero! (You described above
how he removed the cancellation.) He must have used
a faulty gaussmeter. Jefimenko wouldn't make such
an error!

> .. And the above has NOTHING to do with professor Jefimenko.

O, dear! The rooster crows again! Your denials
will become proverbial in the scripture..

--
Jos

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 15, 4:17 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:595e47f3-0d39-40f7...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Thank you so much for that valuable information. I should have known
that both Faraday
and Maxwell were likely to seek that sort of information as to what
kind of wave that
light was.

Could you please list the source books of where Faraday talks about
lateral waves?
So that I can also read where Faraday came to his conclusions on
waves.

Do you have a source for where Maxwell talks about light waves, for I
doubt that Maxwell
could have arrived at the conclusion that light was a transverse wave.
And see if
Maxwell explored any deeper into wave mechanics from that of Faraday.


Also, still, I am blank on the history of when light was known to be a
transverse wave and the
proof of that data? Whether by polarization? So there is a lot here
that I do not know and must
know.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I believe I have now solved both the Sun Corona Heating Problem of too
many X-rays
and the Sun Missing Neutrino Problem.

If we consider that neutrinos are longitudinal waves and the
antiphoton, so that when
a neutrino meets a photon, there is a annihilation of the neutrino-
photon pair that yields
a more energetic photon, such as an X-ray.

Now I have not looked up whether our Sun has too many gamma rays
emission given
our Sun's temperature. So that perhaps, if there are more gamma rays
emitted by the Sun
than usual expected by the Standard Model, then those extra gamma rays
are also explained
by neutrino to photon annihilation.

--- quoting from this website ---
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/sun.html

The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface,
but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's
atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at
millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much
cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an
excellent source of X-rays.
However, the discovery of the hot corona created a big problem for
astronomers and physicists.

The coronal heating problem
Simply stated, the problem is this: The corona is hot, the Sun is not
(relatively speaking). So how does a surface that is about 6,000
Kelvin heat an atmosphere to a million Kelvin? The mechanism by which
the solar corona is heated is still not fully understood, though the
problem has been addressed by some of the sharpest minds in the field
over the past 50 years. The mystery persists.

--- end quote from NASA ---

I feel so good about the above, that I am reassured that the data from
Supernova 1987 will also
reinforce the idea and mechanism that neutrinos are longitudinal waves
that annihilate with photons
creating more energetic photons. I feel good because it will end the
dispute of superluminal neutrinos
since in annihilation, the neutrino must be of the same speed as the
photon and cannot be superluminal, nor can the neutrino have any rest-
mass, that the neutrino, like the photon must have
zero rest-mass.

So that all need be done, really, is for CERN to set up an experiment
where they produce beams of
neutrinos and enter into that beam some photons of various frequency
such that at the other end
of the device, out comes X-rays and even some gamma rays.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 15, 3:54 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe I have now solved both the Sun Corona Heating Problem of too
> many X-rays
> and the Sun Missing Neutrino Problem.
>
> If we consider that neutrinos are longitudinal waves and the
> antiphoton, so that when
> a neutrino meets a photon, there is a annihilation of the neutrino-
> photon pair that yields
> a more energetic photon, such as an X-ray.
>
> Now I have not looked up whether our Sun has too many gamma rays
> emission given
> our Sun's temperature. So that perhaps, if there are more gamma rays
> emitted by the Sun
> than usual expected by the Standard Model, then those extra gamma rays
> are also explained
> by neutrino to photon annihilation.
>

> --- quoting from this website ---http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/sun.html

The above text brings up the question of whether there is too many
gamma rays
emitted by the Sun? Having solved the X-ray emission by noting the
neutrino is the
antiphoton which annihilates with the photon and produces X-rays, the
question arises
whether the Sun has more gamma rays than what the Standard Model
predicts?

Here I found a website researching into that question and it is of
2007 vintage so there
must be some recent updates on the data culled.

--- quoting from this website as to how much gamma ray emission from
Sun ---
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/gammaraysfromthesun.asp

Until now, gamma-rays emitted directly from the sun have been detected
only during rare intense solar flares. However, a paper to be
published by Igor Moskalenko of Stanford/SLAC, Troy Porter of SCIPP/
UCSC, and Seth Digel of SLAC—in Astrophysical Journal Letters in
December—finds that collisions between cosmic-ray electrons and solar
photons (sunlight) make the inner solar system a relatively-bright,
diffuse source of gamma rays with energies 100 million to 1 billion
times greater than visible light. Although the intensity is greatest
near the sun, the entire sky glows faintly in high-energy gamma rays
from this effect, which is known as inverse Compton scattering.
This indirect gamma-ray emission from the sun will be readily
detectable by GLAST, the gamma-ray astronomy mission scheduled for
launch by NASA in late 2007. The main instrument on GLAST, the Large
Area Telescope (LAT) was developed by an international collaboration
including Stanford University/SLAC and SCIPP/UCSC.

--- end quote ---

Here again, what is key now in this research is for CERN to set up a
beam of neutrinos and sprinkle into that beam some various frequencies
of photons and see if we end up with more X-rays and gamma rays than
before.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/15/2012 6:59 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 1/10/2012 3:43 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 6:37 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

>> Actually there is no "must".

Actually there is a "must". When you are talking mathematics there are
MANY "musts". It's the nature of math. However, one obviously cannot
tell Nature what it "must" do. That would be arrogant (and stupid).

> Like there is no "must" in the E and B fields causing
> each other. Wasn't thast pointed out by Jefimenko?

The "must" is that they cannot cause each other. It's a must because we
are talking Maxwellian Models here not what Nature is actually doing.

>> ... My "belief" here is irrelevant, but the person who does
>> (well did!) believe in both fields still existing was the late professor
>> Hooper.

> Why should his belief be more relevant than yours?
> You are too modest.. A scientist should be arrogant.

I think we have PLENTY of people here handling the "arrogant" part!

>> ... Basically he set up two magnets with a wire between them where
>> the fields cancel to zero. But then if you move one of the magnets
>> (which supposedly gives qV x B forces for THAT field) you get a voltage.
>
> Also the total field is no longer zero. He creates
> a dB/dt.

One can create a field as CLOSE to zero as you wish, obviously. But you
agree with my feeling that the "bug" in the experiment is that even if
you've arranged the fields to be at an inflection point there STILL may
be some first or second derivative present when you move a magnet

>> Hence the argument that even though a gaussmeter asserts that there are
>> NO magnetic fields in the region of the wire, the relative motion shows
>> that the fields still exist
>
> But they were no longer zero! (You described above
> how he removed the cancellation.) He must have used
> a faulty gaussmeter. Jefimenko wouldn't make such
> an error!

Don't be silly. Even you could set this up and you can create a quite
flat cancellation point that does not show gaussmeter un-cancellation if
the magnet is moved slightly. And anyway, learn to read and comprehend.
The experiment belongs to Hooper not Jefimenko.

>> .. And the above has NOTHING to do with professor Jefimenko.
>
> O, dear! The rooster crows again! Your denials
> will become proverbial in the scripture..

Two men. Two experiments. Two theories. Just what are you having trouble
with here? I can't make it any simpler for you. Maybe you need to take
a "physics appreciation" course for education majors?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 15, 4:16 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

> Sun ---http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/gammaraysfromthesun.asp

>
> Until now, gamma-rays emitted directly from the sun have been detected
> only during rare intense solar flares. However, a paper to be
> published by Igor Moskalenko of Stanford/SLAC, Troy Porter of SCIPP/
> UCSC, and Seth Digel of SLAC—in Astrophysical Journal Letters in
> December—finds that collisions between cosmic-ray electrons and solar
> photons (sunlight) make the inner solar system a relatively-bright,
> diffuse source of gamma rays with energies 100 million to 1 billion
> times greater than visible light. Although the intensity is greatest
> near the sun, the entire sky glows faintly in high-energy gamma rays
> from this effect, which is known as inverse Compton scattering.
> This indirect gamma-ray emission from the sun will be readily
> detectable by GLAST, the gamma-ray astronomy mission scheduled for
> launch by NASA in late 2007. The main instrument on GLAST, the Large
> Area Telescope (LAT) was developed by an international collaboration
> including Stanford University/SLAC and SCIPP/UCSC.
>
> --- end quote ---
>
> Here again, what is key now in this research is for CERN to set up a
> beam of neutrinos and sprinkle into that beam some various frequencies
> of photons and see if we end up with more X-rays and gamma rays than
> before.
>

GLAST is the Fermi Space Telescope and not much new information has
been
reported.

So what I need is data on how much extra X-rays are coming from the
Sun than
what is expected by the Standard Model. The Standard Model has about
1/3 to 1/2
of the neutrinos missing from the Sun. So if I can find whether the
Sun is emitting
1/3 to 1/2 more X-rays than expected by the Standard Model, then the
mathematics
would support the idea that neutrinos annihilate with photons to
create X-ray photons.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Hold on there for a moment, about Solar gamma rays. I did some more
checking and found this:

--- quoting in part from ---
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/category/fgst/

http://www.di.utoronto.ca/journalist/myblog/?p=232
By switching coordinate systems, Michelson and his team can track the
Sun to build up an image while everything else in the gamma ray sky
streaks past (see photo at top). It’s just a blob, but it’s a
significant blob because Fermi’s predecessor, the Compton Gamma Ray
Observatory, was never able to see the Sun this way.
--- end quoting ---

Now Michelson (wonder if any relation to the famous Michelson 1887)
speculates the cause of those
Solar gamma rays from cosmic rays (energetic protons from outer space)
hitting the Sun's Corona.

Now one could also say that the Sun's X-rays are caused by cosmic rays
in addition to causing the gamma rays.

But I do not think scientists have asked a logical question here. The
question is do we have so many
cosmic rays causing so much gamma rays from the Sun yet elsewhere in
the Solar System we have a paucity of cosmic rays in comparison? But
even more damaging of logic, is the uniformity of those cosmic rays to
cause those perfectly uniform gamma rays all around the Sun. And
elsewhere of stars
and their gamma radiation is so very much uniform. So a logical person
would say there are two strikes against the idea that Solar gamma rays
are caused by cosmic rays:
(1) concentration of cosmic rays near Sun yet not anywhere else in
solar system
(2) uniform distribution of cosmic rays to cause uniform gamma rays

Those two strikes against the idea that the Solar gamma rays are
caused by cosmic rays.

Sure, some Solar gamma rays were caused by some cosmic rays, but the
majority are caused by
the Sun itself of neutrinos annihilation with photons, both from the
Sun, and in the process of annihilation, energetic photons of X-rays
and gamma rays are formed.

So, here again, we need CERN to set up an experiment in which a beam
of neutrinos is fed a stream of photons and watch and record to see if
X-rays and gamma rays are produced in the neutrino to photon
annihilation and yielding X-rays and gamma rays.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci

news:2c397e32-e790-4409...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 15, 4:17 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> <From what I have seen so far, water waves can be both longitudinal and
> transverse.
> <A tsunami, one report, says it is longitudinal.
>
> You should also know the "lateral" waves.
> They were discovered by Faraday in 1846.
> Such waves are emitted by the two sources with the same frequency and
> amplitudes but not in phase. Near the source they are longitudinal. Next
> are
> lateral.
> Such waves are emitted by the Hertz dipole.
> For Faraday was obvious that the light waves are lateral. For me too.
>
> Which one do you prefer?
> S*

<Thank you so much for that valuable information. I should have known
that both Faraday
and Maxwell were likely to seek that sort of information as to what
kind of wave that
light was.

<Could you please list the source books of where Faraday talks about
lateral waves?

<So that I can also read where Faraday came to his conclusions on
waves.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html

<Do you have a source for where Maxwell talks about light waves, for I
doubt that Maxwell
could have arrived at the conclusion that light was a transverse wave.

Maxwell's waves were the pressure waves.
The transverse ones were "made" by Heaviside.

<And see if
Maxwell explored any deeper into wave mechanics from that of Faraday.

Faraday's "nuclei" vibrate. Maxwell's rotate.
The Royal Society rejected the Maxwell model.
Faraday's is in power.

<Also, still, I am blank on the history of when light was known to be a
transverse wave and the
proof of that data? Whether by polarization? So there is a lot here
that I do not know and must
know.

It was the Frasnell's idea:
"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
He proposed the aether drag hypothesis to explain a lack of variation in
astronomical observations."From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

As you see Frasnell's "polarization could be explained only if light was
entirely transverse" was wrong.

Faradays explained it with the lateral waves.

Tesla prove it experimentally.
Before Tesla the Hertz waves were radiated from the dipole (the two sources)
and such are like the light.

Tesla made the monopole (the one source) radiator and was sure that the
waves are longitudinal.

Are the waves in your cell phone polarised?
S*

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/16/2012 3:50 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 1/15/2012 6:59 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

...

>> Like there is no "must" in the E and B fields causing
>> each other. Wasn't thast pointed out by Jefimenko?
>
> The "must" is that they cannot cause each other.

So why can't they?

...

>>> .. And the above has NOTHING to do with professor Jefimenko.
>>
>> O, dear! The rooster crows again! Your denials
>> will become proverbial in the scripture..
>
> Two men. Two experiments. Two theories. Just what are you having trouble
> with here?

I saw only one experiment. The trouble seems to be
your counting to 2.

> I can't make it any simpler for you.

Then what was the 2nd experiment?

--
Jos

[p.ki...@ic.ac.uk]

I apologise for the delay. It's something I want to phrase carefully,
and other work is taking precedence. Whereas a "how would you" post
I can write rather quickly.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/16/2012 2:40 PM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
> Jos Bergervoet<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2012 12:23 PM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> They don't bother me at all, because I don't talk about one field
>>>> component causing another.
>>>
>>> But how would you write down an equation which described
>>> how one thing caused another? (Along with any necessary
>>> context or assumptions, such as a preferred time direction,
>>> of course).
>
>> Actually I was waiting for *your* answer to this
>> very question! (Didn't you indicate that you had
>> a solution, a few days ago?)
>
> I apologise for the delay. It's something I want to phrase carefully,
> and other work is taking precedence. Whereas a "how would you" post
> I can write rather quickly.

OK, hopefully you can solve the Jefimenko problem!
That is, where most people can only see that dB/dt
and rot E always occur together, you might prove
(or disprove) that one causes the other!

Not an easy task, for sure.. (There are strong
opinions involved! But scientific reasoning should
prevail.)

--
Jos

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 16, 2:54 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> napisal w

> wiadomoscinews:2c397e32-e790-4409...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Thanks, that saves me a lot of time in looking up the information and
history.
Funny how you should ask about mobile phones being polarized, in that
the
signal "locks onto a tower" in a form of polarization.

Electromagnetic Potential needs to be defined when the Maxwell
Equations + Lenz Law +
Dirac Equation are the axiom set of all of Physics.

Now I do not think I need this Ehrenberg Experiment or Effect of
Electromagnetic Potential
as a 7th axiom. I think the Electromagnetic Potential is derived from
the existing Maxwell Equations of those 6 mentioned. Szczepan, can you
derive Electromagnetic Potential out of Lenz's law with
Ampere/Maxwell Law? I suspect the Displacement Current in Ampere/
Maxwell law is the Electromagnetic Potential, correct me if wrong?

So what I end up with, I suspect, are 6 equations in all, for the
Revised Maxwell Equations, by adding
on Lenz's law and Dirac Equation. That should give me all of Physics.
And the way I measure that
success is this equation at root principle.

Proton = 938 MeV = (electron 0.5 MeV + space 937.5 MeV)

In other words, Space in Old Physics was thought of as a vacuum, empty
and ready to fill with
particles and forces. In New Physics, Space is as important as matter
is important, and Space
is full and teaming with all sorts of interactions and standing waves
and Faraday lines of force.

So that when a Neutron decays into a proton and electron and neutrino,
that the neutrino carries
away some of that 937.5 MeV and places it into making more Space in
the form of Faraday's Lines
of Force as Electromagnetic Potential.

All of a sudden, Physics has become vastly more complex and
complicated. However, Physics
has now become more simplified as of the 4 forces of Old Physics,
because now there is but one
force in all of Physics-- the EM force.

We look at Saturn and its Rings and realize that gravity is EM-gravity
for rigid-body-rotation and thus
we throw out fake theories and fake ideas of Newtonian gravity,
General Relativity, Big Bang, black holes, neutron stars, dark matter
and dark energy. All of that was a fake physics following a fake road
of physics. Now we see all of New Physics as EM, and we scale up
Saturn to explain the bars in spiral barred galaxies and explain why
so few supernova and explain that mass/matter can never form a black-
hole due to Space being positrons at the center of stars that repel
and create supernova.

We look at Jupiter of its radio signal and scale that up with EM force
to explain pulsars as some form
of a scaled up Jupiter.

We look at the Sun and explain how neutrinos are longitudinal waves
that annihilate with photons to make energetic photons.

So in New Physics, we already have a unification of the forces of
physics in an EM unification and we explain the entire Cosmos as a EM
playground. Of course, when the Universe is all EM, means the Universe
is one big atom itself. And the reason we have so much difficultly in
understanding the bizarre and strangeness of Quantum Mechanics or
Special Relativity, is because the Universe is one big atom that
contains inside itself tiny atoms, where the whole is a part of the
whole.

Again, I call upon CERN to drop its idiotic quest of the Higgs boson
for that is fake physics, and instead of the Higgs boson, channel that
money and time into an experiment of forming a beam of
neutrinos and then sprinkling into that beam another beam of photons
and see if X-rays and gamma
rays come out the other end. In other words, see if the neutrino
annihilates with a photon to form X-ray or gamma ray. Most of the 20th
century was wasted in physics with the gravity and General Relativity
fake path of physics, culminating with the Higgs boson fakery. What we
need now is a replacement of true physics, a physics based on Maxwell
Equations and EM.

So set up the experiment of mixing a neutrino beam with a photon beam
and see if X-rays or gamma rays emerge.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I think a far better name for displacement current is that of EM
Potential current. Of course
Maxwell called it the displacement current for that was the very best
term to describe it
in the 1860s. And we would not know of EM potential until Ehrenberg
and Siday by 1949, or the
Aharonov-Bohm solenoid experiment where the phase shift by 1959.

So if Maxwell had known of the Solenoid phase shift in 1860s, I
suspect he would have
called the current in Ampere/Maxwell law as the Potential Current
rather than the Displacement
Current.

Now I suspect that these 6 laws for the Maxwell Equations:

(1) No Monopole law
(2) Coulomb law
(3) Faraday law
(4) Ampere/Maxwell law
(5) Lenz law
(6) Dirac Equation

is a complete list of independent laws that serve as the axioms of all
of physics. In other words,
with these 6 laws as Maxwell Equations, we derive all of Physics. Just
as we derive all of Euclidean
Geometry from a small group of axioms. The essential feature of an
axiom is that it is not reducible further, and that it is independent
of other axioms and essential for building the entire subject of
physics.

So that these 6 axioms build all of Physics and that they are
independent of each other and that they
are required to build Physics. Without the Lenz law, we could never
know that light was a transverse wave. Without the Dirac Equation, we
would never know that Space is a duality of mass/matter, nor would we
know that Conservation of Energy is violated in Dirac new
radioactivities. Nor, without Dirac
Equation as the 6th law, would we be able to build the chemical
elements of the periodic table of elements.

Now I hate to say it, but it looks as though 6 is a magic number of
sorts in that there are 6 equations
to complete the Maxwell Equations and that means there are 6
independent particles needed to fulfill
all of physics, and those particles are proton, electron, photon,
antiproton, antielectron and neutrino=
antiphoton. With those 6 particles as primary, then all the rest of
the particles in physics are just merely energy add-ons of those 6
fundamental particles. All the rest of the particles in physics are
not worth studying since they are just a more energetic particle of
their root primary particle. Of course the muon is worth studying for
it has a longer half-life than other secondary particles, but in the
physics zoo of particles, such hypothetical particles as the Z
particle or the Higgs boson are just a waste of time and resources to
satisfy the cranks and crackpots of bygone past days of physics. The
Higgs boson was a particle in a bygone era where they used Algebras of
mathematics to imagine particles
such as the quark theory is just mathematical imagination with no
basis in reality. If instead of wasting the time and resources of
chasing after Algebras to fit particles and particles to fit algebras,
if instead of that huge waste of time, money and energy, when all they
really had to do was look at Saturn and realize that EM-gravity causes
the rings of Saturn and not General Relativity and thus all of physics
comes out of the Maxwell Equations, and thus no Higgs boson nonsense.

In the future centuries of physics, they will look back at the 20th
century and realize the huge mistake of following a path of Newtonian
gravity to General Relativity, and missing the fact that rigid body
rotation (Saturn and rings) means EM-gravity and thus the Maxwell
Equations was the correct path
and that looking for Higgs boson was the pinnacle of crackpot physics
of Big Bang to black-holes, to
neutron stars, to Higgs boson. From 1930 to 2011 was nearly 80 years,
and 80 years of a fake path, a crackpot and crank path of physics,
when a smart person only needed to look at Saturn and its Rings
and say to themselves, "let us not be utter fools by invoking dark
matter and dark energy around Saturn to create that rigid-body-
rotation" but instead say, let us halt and throw out General
Relativity and install Maxwell Equations.

But I guess physics, like all the other sciences has more sheep than
it has scientists smart enough to
hold a cup of logic in their mind.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

This is getting better and better. Now I have the facts that according
to the Standard Model,
the Sun is missing 1/3 to 1/2 of neutrinos predicted. So what I
propose with the idea that
the neutrino is the antiphoton and that the neutrino meets with a
photon and annihilates, yielding
a far more energetic photon such as a X-ray or gamma ray, and that our
Sun is in fact a
X-ray emitter that is anomalous for the Sun according to the Standard
Model. So does the
reader catch the logic involved? That the missing 1/3 to 1/2 neutrinos
are in fact annihilating
with photons and producing that 1/3 to 1/2 more X-rays than normal.

So now, carrying that logic over to astronomy, we should see where a
pulsar is emitting X-rays
and whether that pulsar is emitting neutrinos simultaneously and
whether we can link the
amount of X-rays versus the amount of neutrinos. Searching the Web I
found an article in
Physical Review D 79, 123010 (2009) [5 pages] TeV neutrinos from
accreting x-ray pulsars,
Wlodek Bednarek. I have not read the full article, but am curious to
see if I can make a
mathematical match similar to the match for the Sun in that 1/3 to 1/2
missing neutrinos
and a 1/3 to 1/2 more X-rays than usual. So if I can make that match
with pulsars and the Sun,
then as we go into the experiment of producing a neutrino beam and
then mixing into that beam
some photons and out comes X-rays, would be a excellent experiment and
excellent results.

If the experiment comes true, then it would be proof that neutrinos
are longitudinal waves that are the anti-photon.

So if CERN can set up the experiment of a neutrino beam, and then mix
into that beam some photons to see if the outcome are X-rays and gamma
rays, then we have a monumental progress for physics,
for it then tells us the Universe is run by the Maxwell Equations.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci

news:b596dde5-89e4-4abc...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

Polarisation means that the dipoles must be in the same plane and in the
same directon.
Your mobile phone works in each position. Waves from the monopole are simply
the alternate electric field.

<Electromagnetic Potential needs to be defined when the Maxwell
Equations + Lenz Law +
<Dirac Equation are the axiom set of all of Physics.

<Now I do not think I need this Ehrenberg Experiment or Effect of
Electromagnetic Potential
as a 7th axiom. I think the Electromagnetic Potential is derived from
the existing Maxwell Equations of those 6 mentioned. Szczepan, can you
derive Electromagnetic Potential out of Lenz's law with
Ampere/Maxwell Law? I suspect the Displacement Current in Ampere/
Maxwell law is the Electromagnetic Potential, correct me if wrong?

You should take a glance in the Heaviside paper:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_effects_of_a_moving_charge
And the Maxwell: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

You find that In Maxwell's model are the molecular magnetic whirls and in
Heaviside's the giant magnetic whirl.
The both are in the dielectric.
The today's EM is Heaviside's. It is anti-Maxwell.

<So what I end up with, I suspect, are 6 equations in all, for the
<Revised Maxwell Equations, by adding
on Lenz's law and Dirac Equation. That should give me all of Physics.
<And the way I measure that
success is this equation at root principle.

In Faraday-L. Lorenz- Tesla's model in the space is the rare plasma (ions
and electrons).
The equations of Maxwell and Heaviside are for dielectric. Rare plasma is
not dielectric.

Maxwell's model was rejected by Royal Society. Heaviside's is only in
textbooks.

The first step is to confirm what is in the space: rare plasma or mystery
dielectric.

You should also know that in physics are the two methods: the field method
and the charge method.
The second is known as the Newtonian Electrodynamics:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEWELBOOK.html
S*

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 17, 3:23 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> napisal w

> wiadomoscinews:b596dde5-89e4-4abc...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 16, 2:54 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>

(snipped)

>
> > Are the waves in your cell phone polarised?
> > S*
>
> <Thanks, that saves me a lot of time in looking up the information and
> history.
> <Funny how you should ask about mobile phones being polarized, in that
> the
> signal "locks onto a tower" in a form of polarization.
>
> Polarisation means that the dipoles must be in the same plane and in the
> same directon.
> Your mobile phone works in each position. Waves from the monopole are simply
> the alternate electric field.
>

Hi Szczepan, but that was not your original question. Your original
question was
whether cell phone EM waves are polarized.

--- quoting Wikipedia on polarization ---
All radio transmitting and receiving antennas are intrinsically
polarized, special use of which is made in radar. Most antennas
radiate either horizontal, vertical, or circular polarization although
elliptical polarization also exists. The electric field or E-plane
determines the polarization or orientation of the radio wave. Vertical
polarization is most often used when it is desired to radiate a radio
signal in all directions such as widely distributed mobile units. AM
and FM radio use vertical polarization, while television uses
horizontal polarization. Alternating vertical and horizontal
polarization is used on satellite communications (including television
satellites), to allow the satellite to carry two separate
transmissions on a given frequency, thus doubling the number of
customers a single satellite can serve.
--- end quote ---

It is urgent that CERN set up the experiment of a neutrino beam
sprinkled with photons of various energies below that of X-ray energy
and monitor whether some X-rays appear as neutrino + photon
annihilation events.

[Roddey]

On Jan 18, 3:35 am, Archimedes Plutonium

> are galaxies- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

my problem with longitudinal electromagnetic wave is that there would
be additional polarization that would give mass to the photon. How do
you guys deal with this? Maybe change the U(1) gauge symmetry into
another where it would make the photon massless again (in that gauge
group)?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 17, 6:13 pm, Roddey <Rodss...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 3:35 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>

>

> my problem with longitudinal electromagnetic wave is that there would
> be additional polarization that would give mass to the photon. How do
> you guys deal with this? Maybe change the U(1) gauge symmetry into
> another where it would make the photon massless again (in that gauge
> group)?

Hello, so you say it is your problem of additional polarization giving
rise to mass
to the photon? How do you come up with that? Did you use U(1) to come
up with that?

Please do not misunderstand me, for I do not accept any gauge theory
because
none of the gauge theories ever predicted any true experiment or
experimental result.

Gauge theory is when physicists are naked and have nothing else but
their nakedness
in dealing with reality.

Physicists with gauge theories do not even have logic.

At least I have logic, and logic throws gauge theories into the
garbage rubbish bin.

I have researched Tesla on longitudinal waves, but nothing has
emerged.

The only real lead so far, is that when we demand the neutrino as the
antiphoton, requires
the opposite of a transverse wave. Tesla never argued that, but was
looking for wireless
electricity and thus his desire of longitudinal EM. My desire is
antiphoton. How do we make the anti of a transverse wave? Do we get
another transverse wave? I think not. Do gauge theories have anything
to say? Of course not, never have and never will.

Logic says that the anti transverse wave is not another transverse
wave but rather, a longitudinal wave. Since the photon has zero rest
mass, would the antiphoton have a rest mass? No, it would also be 0
rest mass.

Roddey, I rather you not reply for you lack a logical mind to ever be
doing physics at all. You should have gone into engineering so as to
keep what little you know of physics at least grounded to something
solid and true, rather than your flight into nonsense.

Not worth saving in these books,
AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I need to wrap up chapter 14 of the Atom Totality book on
"Space"
and then set aside the particle physics book "New Physics" to focus
on the Atom Totality book. I do this at this juncture since the
experiment
of neutrinos mixed with photons to create X-rays needs to be done.
Theory
will not go anywhere until an answer from that experiment is provided.

There was a name given to Particle Physics and it would be interesting
to
track down the first appearance in print where it was called "Particle
Physics Zoo" how the word "zoo" entered particle physics. For that is
rather a kind
remark, when I can think of a lot more apt and scathing terms.

In the future, the last half of the 20th century and the first decade
of the
21st century will be looked upon in physics, if anyone saves that
literature of that time period as a rather confusing effort by
physicists. The future physicists will wonder why no-one from 1950 to
2010, realizing that Saturn's rings do not obey Newtonian gravity nor
General Relativity and that why no-one
had the logical smarts to say that EM caused those Saturn rings, and
thus, all the forces reduce to EM. They will ask why did the
physicists from 1950 to 2010
see that Saturn and its Ring in rigid body rotation did not invoke
dark matter
nor dark energy, but when rigid body rotation was seen in globular
clusters or barred spiral galaxies or galactic clusters, that dark
matter and dark energy was invoked to explain rigid body rotation.

Physicists of the future are going to wonder why physicists from 1950
to 2010
chased after a Unification of Forces, yet played around with Gauge
Symmetry theories and built the Standard Model? And my answer to all
that nonsense and waste of time, was that there were only three
physicists from 1950 to 1990 who had a sufficient amount of logical
abilities to render some important physics discoveries-- Dirac, Bell,
and DeBroglie, and all the rest succumbed to illogical ventures.
Almost anyone excited by physics can go to school and the education
system and come out with a degree in physics and have made good
grades, but only about 1 in ten thousand of those has sufficient logic
to ever
make use of a physics degree.

Einstein spent a majority of his physics career chasing after a
Unified Field theory with absolutely no luck, no accomplishment, but
if Einstein had had just
one iota of logical abilities, think of what he could have
accomplished in his
first year of looking for a Unification of Force theory. It is amazing
even today, with all the people who have a degree in physics, who
cannot even start at the starting block, because they lack the logic
to even start. I cannot remember what book it was in, Alice in
Wonderland or Wizard of Oz where it is questioned "where do you
start?" and one of the characters answers "start at the beginning?"
Yet physicists are a very proud lot of people who have a hard time
realizing that they are actually so stupid that they do not know where
to start, such as Einstein. Even I was stupid about this Unification
of Forces, but after thinking about it for a decade, I solved it for
myself, and the reader can solve it here for themselves, if you read
further.

Solving the Unification of Forces problem: Of course you are going to
need a bare minimum of logic. So you have four forces in Old Physics,
of gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and electromagnetism EM.
Einstein tried to solve this but failed after what? after 40 years of
trying? His problem was he never started at the beginning with logic.
Logic says that if you unify four forces, you end up with how many
forces? Of course, unification means one force. So you started. Now
the next logical question is what? It is that we are going to
eliminate three of those four forces and end up with just one, so what
is the likely most perfect force of those 4 forces we started with? So
now, we have to enter more Logic abilities; abilities that are harder
to come by for physics students than making high grades on tests. A
great physicist is not one that makes high test scores and breezes
through schools, but a great physicist is one that standing around a
group of men and duplicating the experiment of Oersted, that Faraday
instantly recognized what was going on with "lines of force". Or, when
someone sees Saturn and its Ring, comes to the realization
that such cannot be gravity but EM.

So of the 4 forces, do any one of them have some feature of being
"perfect"?
The logical person instantly recognizes there is nothing perfect in
gravity,
nothing in weak-nuclear force nor in strong-nuclear force. In EM,
there is something perfect, and strange and mysterious, in that the
photon, the carrier
particle of EM has no rest mass and is forever in motion and we see
this in the atom as Quantum Mechanics in that the electron never loses
energy but is only jumping back and forth between orbits.

So if Einstein had that iota, that modicum of logic, instead of
wasting 40 years over nothing, could have started down the proper and
correct path in one year by saying the unification of forces has to
end up with a EM force that makes the other three forces as a EM
force.

Instead, the path that Einstein led ended up in fakeries and failures
with Big Bang, black-holes, neutron stars, gauge theories, Standard
Model, and finally Higgs boson.

Oh sure, Peter Higgs is probably happy these days that CERN is chasing
after his Higgs boson, along with Leon Lederman happy over what he
called the "god particle". But in future generations, looking back at
this century and the last
century, would want to know how physics got in such a miserable rut,
how so lacking of bare minimum logic, that they went chasing after a
Higgs boson, yet
they could have done the experiment of sprinkling in photons into a
neutrino beam to see if X-rays emerged. An experiment that even Leon
Lederman could have
set up where you mix a beam of neutrinos with photons to see if X-rays
emerge.

So in summary of the 20th century and first decade of 21st. We have
physicists
looking for Dark Matter and Dark Energy and cannot even properly
explain Saturn's Ring.

We have physicists spending gobs of money and time chasing a Higgs
boson from
nothing more than abstract algebra of gauge symmetry, when they could
have easily set up the experiment to see if neutrinos mixed with
photons yields X-rays.

We have physicists telling us about millisecond pulsars, perhaps even
microsecond pulsars soon to come, yet who cannot recognize that
Jupiter is a planet pulsar and that gravity is EM-gravity so that when
we scale up Jupiter
to a star, that this "neutron star nonsense" goes away.

I am a harsh judge of science, but foolery and crankery and
crackpottery deserves a harsh judge. Physics from 1930 to 2010 was
mostly a grotesque
failure, where only a few persons had enough **logic** to make true
accomplishments. Most of the theory of physics, be it cosmology to
superconductivity or particle physics was all fakery and nonsense. The
blame
is that of lack of logic. And our education system fails to ever
emphasis
logic. Logic taught in schools, especially universities is seen as an
exotic class, when it should be the first and prime class. Logic makes
the rest of thinking either good or bad. Without logic, the rest of
thinking is not good. Even human literature knows this, what I speak
of, for in the literature or movies, a common theme emerges, in that
Hell is a place where reason is absent. Or, Hell is a place where
Logic is mostly missing.

It is assumed that when a person graduates from college with a degree
in physics or mathematics that logic is with them automatically. I
have found that to be sadly not the case. I have found that most
mathematicians and physicists
are not really scientists at all because they lack sufficient logic.
If we made a survey today of all the scientists in the world and asked
them a few questions of logic and asked them how many courses of logic
they took while in school, we probably end up with a tiny fraction of
them who pass that scrutiny.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 17, 1:35 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Now Szczepan is going to probably disagree with me on this, but I
think his question was poor about cell phones, and thinking about
his question today I was wondering if I could not strengthen it
into a very good question of large import. Szczepan's question was
whether cell phones utilized polarized EM waves. If Szczepan had
questioned on how cell phones worked, then his answer of alternating
E field would have been my proper response, but that was not his
question,
for his question asked if polarization had any part of cell phones
being able to work.

So let us ask the question, the better question of what Szczepan
ended up asking. Let us ask if polarization of EM waves is critical,
crucial
in having cell phones? In other words, if no EM waves are able to be
polarized in Nature, then would we still have cell phones in
existence?

Now one can make an analogy to polarized eye-glasses and say that
polarization is not crucial or vital in having glasses to see. That
the world would not
be different if there could not exist polarized eye glasses. So by
that analogy
can we then cross over to cell phones and say that without
polarization of EM
waves, that the world would still have cell phones, just as we have
them now?

I believe the answer is that we would have no cell phones at all,
without the
ability to make polarization of EM waves. Now I am no expert on this
physics,
nor am I ever a electrical or telecom engineer, so if I am wrong,
please correct me.

But I think the correct answer is that polarization of EM waves is the
only way that cell phones are possible at all because polarization
makes the waves come out clear, and not static or fuzz. That if not
for polarization, we would see the TV screen as nothing but fuzz and
hear the cell phone as static noise.

Without polarization EM waves would be mostly noise.

So please correct me if I am wrong on that assessment.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> napisał w
wiadomości
news:9697a278-fbb7-448a...@u20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Much words, no information.

To have the polarised electric waves must be the two sources. Dipole has the
two ends. Each end is a source.

Look at this:
http://schools.cbe.ab.ca/b858/dept/sci/teacher/zubot/Phys30notes/Hertzexp/hertzexp.htm

The receiver must be in the same plane as the transmitter and in proper
direction because the interference works..

If the only one plate works no interference.
S*

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Roddey" <Rods...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:0e80fb48-2b39-43e1...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 18, 3:35 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:23 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
> > Polarisation means that the dipoles must be in the same plane and in the
> > same directon.
> > Your mobile phone works in each position. Waves from the monopole are
> > simply
> > the alternate electric field.
>

>my problem with longitudinal electromagnetic wave is that there would
be additional polarization that would give mass to the photon. How do
you guys deal with this? Maybe change the U(1) gauge symmetry into
another where it would make the photon massless again (in that gauge
group)?

Your problem is that you do not know what is in the space.
Now we know that in the space is rare plasma.

In such medium are Faraday-Tesla's waves.

All theories for the vacuum as the dielectric are a history.
S*

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> napisał w
wiadomości

news:3328fbbc-10c8-4d69...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

You must be " expert on this physics".
Start with: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm

Electrons has mass. If they oscillate in the wire they behave exactly like
the air molecules in the Kundt's tube.
At the end the voltage is doubled. The electrons jump off from the antena
end. Alternate electric field is the longitudinal wave.
Two or more sources interfere.

For all physisists was obvious that in space are electrons and they
oscillate like in the wire.

Light is polarised so it means that in the nature are only dipoles.

Tesla made the monopole (one end of the dipole is grounded).
S*

[Bill Miller]

"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4f140969$0$6954$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

> On 1/16/2012 3:50 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 1/15/2012 6:59 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> ...
>>> Like there is no "must" in the E and B fields causing
>>> each other. Wasn't thast pointed out by Jefimenko?
>>
>> The "must" is that they cannot cause each other.
>
> So why can't they?
>

In order for "A" to *cause* "B," "A must precede "B" in time. (Occasionally,
I have someone challenge this. Please pardon me if I do not reply to those,
IMNTBHO, misguided challenges. I'll just giggle silently.)

Maxwell's equations, as taught in EM classes, are descriptive, with E and H
occurring simultaneously.

Thus, E cannot *cause,* H and vice versa.

Instead, Jefimenko (and also Panofsky/Phillips) has shown that E and H are
*caused* by charges and the motion of charges, whose states and actions
*precede* the E and H fields that they cause.

A careful, but simple, examination of "Jefimenko's Equations" provides the
explanation of Lenz's Law that is lacking in the Classical forms of Maxwell.

(You *have* read Jefimenko's "Causality..." book, right?)

All the best,

Bill Miller

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 1/23/2012 5:47 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> "Jos Bergervoet"<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4f140969$0$6954$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
>> On 1/16/2012 3:50 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2012 6:59 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Like there is no "must" in the E and B fields causing
>>>> each other. Wasn't thast pointed out by Jefimenko?
>>>
>>> The "must" is that they cannot cause each other.
>>
>> So why can't they?
>>
>
> In order for "A" to *cause* "B," "A must precede "B" in time.

So what is the problem then? The E-field can then
be caused by the B-field a little earlier, and vice
versa. (This is also precisely the way they are
calculated by the Yee-algorithm.)

...

> (You *have* read Jefimenko's "Causality..." book, right?)

Me?! Are you confusing me with someone else, maybe?

--
Jos

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Bill Miller <kt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>> So why can't they?

> In order for "A" to *cause* "B," "A must precede "B" in time. (Occasionally,
> I have someone challenge this. Please pardon me if I do not reply to those,
> IMNTBHO, misguided challenges. I'll just giggle silently.)

I suppose, but when special relativity is important, you have to be
carefule when using "precede."

> Maxwell's equations, as taught in EM classes, are descriptive,
> with E and H occurring simultaneously.

What do you mean by "occurring simultaneously"?

> Thus, E cannot *cause,* H and vice versa.

Go back to a nice, simple system, an object falling due to gravity.
(If that isn't simple enough, use a spring.)

Does acceleration cause changes in velocity, or do changes in
velocity cause acceleration?

The physics seems to be that a force (spring or gravity) causes
acceleration, which causes a change in velocity.

From that, and the differential form of Maxwell's equations,
the change in one with a time derivative is due to the other.

Now, note that "simultaneously" is frame dependent. I would say that
cause and "precede" should be used only when true in all frames.

So, go back and check what E and H do, in a frame independent manner,
and see what causes what.

-- glen

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 1/23/2012 12:06 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Now, note that "simultaneously" is frame dependent. I would say that
> cause and "precede" should be used only when true in all frames.
>
> So, go back and check what E and H do, in a frame independent manner,
> and see what causes what.
>
> -- glen

I don't want to highjack Bill's thread here but "simultaneously" at a
given time t and point x,y,z are not frame dependent. Maxwell's
equations are describing that: different field values at a given point
and time. They are clearly related to each other by some function but
they cannot "cause each other". Trying to sow confusion with relativity
isn't going to work. It's relativity that makes the rule! Information
cannot travel faster than the speed of light, hence any two points
separated by some distance at a given time cannot be the cause of each
other for that reason. It's trickier at the SAME point, and that needs
some discussion, but not as you say, due to frame dependency.