On Maxwell's Physical Theory
Paul Stowe
interested in the past discussions which contains a lot of details, see
the thread:
"Re: Is DJMenck's "Materialism" Unique to Him or Well-Known?"
In article <01HW.B5DCC11F0...@news.freeserve.net>,
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>So first I managed to find Maxwell's original text (well I still do
>not have the beginning of part II because the corresponding pages are
>missing in the Philosophical Magazine in my library; how unlucky !).
>So I will not have to rely on my memory and some old messy notes
>anymore. Better, after reading part IV I remembered the biggest
>problem of Maxwell's model: it is incompatible with magneto-optic
>effects.
>
>This is an effect which was investigated experimentally first by
>Faraday. But for Maxwell the results of Verdet were the problem.
>Shortly the plane of polarization of light rotates when it goes
>through media in which a strong magnetic field has been established,
>in the direction of propagation of light. Here is what Maxwell wrote
>at the end of "On the Physical Lines of Forces" (Scientific Papers,
>volume 1, p. 507):
>
> " On our theory, the direction of the rotation of the plane
> of polarization depends on that of the mean moment of momenta,
> or angular momentum, of the molecular vortices; and since M.
> Verdet has discovered that [para]magnetic substances have an
> effect on light opposite to that of diamagnetic substances, it
> follows that the molecular rotation must be opposite in the
> two classes of substances.
> We can no longer, therefore, consider diamagnetic bodies
> as being those whose coefficient of magnetic induction is less
> than that of space empty of gross matter. We must admit the
> diamagnetic state to be the opposite of the paramagnetic; and
> that the vortices, or at least the influential majority of them,
> in diamagnetic substances, revolve in the direction in which
> positive electricity revolves in the magnetizing bobbin, while
> in paramagnetic substances they revolve in the opposite
> direction"
>
>But since vacuum is the intermediate state between diamagnetic and
>paramagnetic state, this means that the average rotation speed of
>vortices is zero.
Huh? If he were talking about a single vortex entity, you might have a
point. Clearly you misunderstood the discussion. Let ^ denote an "out
of the page" magnetic flux direction, let + & - represent the major
axis rotation of a single vortex. Then a "pure paramagnetic" substance
would be:
+++++++
+++++++ ^
+++++++
+++++++
a "pure diamagnetic" substance:
-------
------- ^
-------
-------
and the neutral state:
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+ ^
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
>Since Maxwell's model can not survive without rotating vortices one
>must therefore have vortices rotating in both directions, with the
>same number of the both of these kinds. But then idle wheels between
>vortices rotating in opposite direction must be modeled in a
>completely different way. Basically Maxwell had to rebuild his model
>at least starting from part II (since alternating vortices rotating
>in opposite directions can save part I).
There are, and never were, actual "idler wheels" in Maxwell's model.
There were flow lines that either went like:
------------->
<-------------
a.k.a. opposite to each other (for which Maxwell envisioned friction
between these without some kind of lubricating mechanism, the idler
concept gave "him" a conceptual way out of this). Or:
------------>
------------>
Remembering the historical "context" in which he worked (for in modern
fluid mechanics the diametrical opposing streamline condition simply is
not a problem)
>He had never tried to do that. Ever. One can wonder why. Most
>historians of science think of course that Maxwell knew it was very
>difficult to salvage his model and that he preferred to follow a more
>rewarding way.
He did not have the appropriate tools to rely and call upon. That IS
the problem with "bleeding edge" development, generally you are, by
definition, breaking totally NEW ground.
>> Luc Bourhis writes:
>>>
>>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>>
>> Maxwell became convinced of Faraday's hypothesis. He set out to
>> figure out the details of, specifically how, and yes why, the
>> experimental observations of Faraday did what they did. He
>> 'believed' that this would yield to a mechanistic fluidic
>> interpretation. Thus using Faraday's ideas as the working basis, he
>> added to, and mathematically quantified, the phenomena. But yes,
>> Maxwell never questioned the validity of Newtonian mechanics.
>
> We agree. But we disagree about how rigorous was the model Maxwell
> finally came with.
That IS an accurate statement!
>>> The next question is how believable was the mechanism itself and we
>>> are surely going to disagree about that issue.
>>
>> Belief is irrelevant,
>
>I meant a mechanism similar to what is observed for ordinary fluids
>or solids.
Good, now what mechanism of Maxwell's proposal is not observed in
ordinary fluids?
>> the fact is, to this day, the characteristics that Maxwell ascribed
>> to describe bulk EM processes are in fact a set of specific fluid
>> mechanical equations. Fact two, these were, and still are, based
>> upon vortex interactions.
>
>Definitively not. Some part of Maxwell's model relies on the
>mechanics of solid and not of fluid. His vortices behave as solid
>when he needed them to have this property. I'll support that later
>when answering your next comments. Moreover we disagree about
>specific. Instead I would have said "unlike anything seen elsewhere",
>which is certainly not what you meant.
And these "mechanic of solid" properties are? Remember, superfluids
can, and do, have transverse wave components, "rotons". And before you
come back with ...but superfluids are quantum, define WHAT,
specifically, you mean by quantum. The word quantum was initially
coined only to designate an apparent "discrete" verses "continuous"
nature in observed phenomena.
>> This is WHY the so-called abstract mathematics of Penrose's twistors
>> describe a ring vortex structure! Don't believe that, go find a
>> pictorial illustration of said twistor... Your only other choice is
>> to believe in coincidences.
>
> A twistor is a pair of SL(2) spinors which means that it is an object
> with 4 complex components: it lives in a 8-dimensional real space. At
> best your pictorial illustration is 3-dimensional. So whatever is
> this pictorial representation it is as comparing an elephant and a
> tire because the both of them have a coarse surface !
Impasse, not worth further debate.
>>>>> 1) Maxwell **wanted** a mechanical explanation because this fit
>>>>> with his metaphysical ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Undeniably extremely successful ones, one might add.
>>>
>>> There are much simpler derivation of Maxwell's equation than his
>>> original one. [....]
>>
>> First, generally one cannot find something if they don't look for
>> it.
>
>Something ? What are you talking about ?
That you would ask this question in light of all that has been
discussed is quite telling of you mentality on this subject. You have
claimed that Maxwell's model hasn't yielded anything of notable merit.
As I reference below, on the contrary, the model remains sound and
yielded one of the most successful descriptions of nature every
devised. However, if no one seriously works with it, and explores &
probes how it may fit into modern views (since by your own admission it
lays abandoned and idle for ~100+ years), the argument become circular
and useless. A.k.a. "no one has successfully shown Maxwell's model to
be..." yet "no one has seriously attempted to show ..." since no one
has work on this, and 99+% of the physicist alive today don't even know
that this model exists.
>> However, even when one isn't looking for Maxwell's vortices they
>> keep finding them. May I suggest you look at section 7.3 (pages
>> 217-228) of Paul Davies "The New Physics". But of course, just
>> other pure coincidences since, in your mind, the obvious
>> connectivity simply isn't possible.
>
>If this example is as silly as your seeing vortices in Penrose's
>twistor ... but I will have a look at it if I find the book.
No, go look at the section. What I am saying, specifically, Maxwell's
vortex model has never been overthrown. This is NOT a controversial
statement, and you can find references to this in many places. For
example, in the "Handbook of Physics" Part 3, Chapter 2 "Fluid
Mechanics", Section 5 "Vortex Flows of Inviscid Fluids" we find:
"There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal
fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds
to the current intensity and the vortex vector the current
density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines
(streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are
by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity
is said to be 'induced' by the vorticity. The formula for
induced velocity corresponds exactly to the law of Biot and
Savart for magnetic effect of an electric current (See Part 4
Chapter 1, Sec. 6).
Now you can "believe" that this is "pure coincidence", but doing so
most certainly is not being "scientific", and definitely not in holding
with Ockham's Razor.
IOW on what objective observational basis does one remove Maxwell's
hypothesis from consideration. It won't be MMX, Trouton-Noble, or any
known incompatibility with Fluid Mechanics (as referenced above). The
only basis for removal is metaphysical, i.e. it does not fit into the
current 'belief' system.
>>> The comparison is misleading because Maxwell's mechanical model
>>> does not explain anything else than his field equations. It can
>>> not give any valid result that is not obtainable by the field
>>> equations, mainly because it was partially tailored to give these
>>> equations.
>>
>> Sure it can. Once one correctly fills in the empty slots, it can
>> give us Planck's constant direct, for example.
>
>How do you define Planck's constant in relation with a purely
>classical model a la Maxwell ? This sentence is ridiculous.
>Furthermore any other examples ?
What does the term Action [A] mean in the context of standard fluid
theory? What units does it have? Is it defined as:
A = 2pL
Where p is the momenta of a particle of the medium, and L the mean free
path between collisions?
It is NO coincidence that Planck coined the term "the quantum of
Action" for h.
So, let p ~= 5.152E-27kg-m/sec and L ~= 6.431E-08 m, then:
h = 2(5.152E-27)(6.431E-08) = 6.626E-34 kg-m^2/sec
Moreover, given that elemental charge [q] (as defined by my
interpretation of Maxwell's model) is Div p, we get:
2p
q = ---- = 1.602E-19
L
One of them-thar amazing coincidences that I just keep coming up
with... Ya'know like k = h/qc, w = Qm/r, d = zv, ...etc.
k = Boltzmann's constant
w = power flux (watts/m^2)
Q = LeSagian power induction coefficient (2.4E-19 m/sec^3)
m = a body's mass
r = a spherical body's radius
d = drag (deceleration)
v = a body's relative velocity
z = drag coefficient (7.05E-14 1/sec)
Another is, the energy associated with p is pc/2, or 7.725E-19 Joules
or 4.8 eV.
>> [idle wheels] are nothing more than the particulate entities
>> constituting the medium.
>> [...]
>> Transfer of momentum/energy from one point to another
>> along a streamline (line of force) act 'like' a conveyor, it
>> certainly isn't any mechanical 'conveyor belt'.
>
> That's your own personal interpretations of Maxwell's model. Don't
> think you will impress any knowledgeable reader by using bombastic
> expressions. Here are facts on the contrary:
>
> 1) Maxwell's own words (Scientific Papers, vol. 1, p. 486):
><< The conception of a particle [idle wheel] having its motion
>connected with that of a vortex by perfect rolling contact may appear
>somewhat awkward. I do not bring it forward as a mode of connection
>existing in Nature, or even as that which I would willingly assent to
>as an electrical hypothesis>>
Note the key words "a particle" and *your* translation [idle wheel] in
your Maxwell quote.
>2) These idle wheels which are in perfect rolling contact with
>vortices do not rub against each other however (cf. point (5) near
>the end of part II). Idle wheels have therefore not the same
>properties as the particles vortices are made of, contrary to what
>you wrote earlier.
All I can say is; you understanding of basic fluid theory is lacking.
>3) For Maxwell's model to work there must be one and only one layer of
>idle wheels between the vortices and they must be constantly in
>contact with each others. If the former are the particles the fluid
>are made of, don't you think it is a completely ad hoc hypothesis
>which contradicts what is observed in ordinary fluids ?
In all compressible particulate mediums the particles are NOT
constantly touching...
>4) the translation of an idle wheel in a conductor changes not only
>the motion of the part of the vortex in contact with it but also the
>angular speed of the vortex as a whole. So vortices act as solids more
>than as fluidic objects.
>
>Therefore contrary to what you wrote Maxwell's model is definitively
>very close to a real conveyor belt when it comes to explain the
>connection between electricity and magnetism. The only purely
>hydrodynamical part of his work is part I where he studied purely
>magnetic phenomena.
>
>Let's continue with a few incorrect statement of yours, some extracted
>from old messages in this thread:
>
>> As far as I can discern, Maxwell considered the individual vortices
>> standard ring vortices like the so-called smoke ring, ...
>
>Where did you find the word "ring" in Maxwell's writings ? In part I,
>just before eq. (1), Maxwell stated clearly that the shape, the
>distribution of density and angular velocity are not specified. The
>only constrain is that all these characteristics must be the same for
>all vortices. Yet another completely unrealistic postulate by the by.
OK, in a uniform medium without discrete discontinuous boundaries (such
as a wall, floor, or embedded object) what type of vortices can exist?
>> .... not any exotic hexagonal one.
>
>Maxwell considered hexagonal vortices in part II for god sake. And
>here is what you came with to prove how natural was this hypothesis:
>
>>>> Ring vortices are like rubber bands; they can and will distort
>>>> their shape to fill voids. Place a bunch of ring vortices on a
>>>> 2D surface with parallel axes and aligned rotations watch what
>>>> happens.
>>
>>> You don't think "ring vortices on a 2D surface" will get an
>>> hexagonal shape, do you?
>>
>> Yes, its typical fluid behavior. A case in point is illustrated on
>> page 318 of Davies's book. This is due to thermal convection and
>> called Benard Cells. It is a mundane NON superfluidic example of
>> this behavior.
>
>These are _convection_ cells for god sake ! This means that you need
>gravity to produce them and that they can exist only in a sufficiently
>horizontal plane. What is needed in Maxwell is utterly different. I
>advise you to reread Descartes who stated that one must search clear
>and distinct concepts to think rationally.
Again, your lack of either understanding AND showing any ability to
reason is showing. (I think that this is mainly due to an intense
reluctance to be willing to look at the subject with anything
approaching an objective, open perspective)
>> Remember Maxwell predicted this before (as far as I know) it was
>> even seen.
>
>LOL. Then bees have been predicting Benard cells on a daily basis for
>millions of years.
Did you even bother to look at page 318? This book is not hard to come
by.
>Anyway you have therefore failed to support your claiming that
>vortices can get an hexagonal shape, either with theoretical or
>experimental evidences.
>
>>> I do not understand what you disagree with.
>>>
>>> (1) On one hand he treated the wheels as fluidic circular
>>> vortices when calculating their kinetic energy and the
>>> difference of pressure between center and border; the
>>> intensity of the magnetic field was identified with the
>>> speed of the vortex at its surface and the magnetic
>>> permeability as its possibly varying density;
>>
>> No, wrong again. No wheels, the circulation profile in the vortex.
>
>Please read carefully what I wrote. In this (1) I did clearly state
>that Maxwell treated his vortices in a proper hydrodynamical way in
>some part of his paper, in part I actually.
And he NEVER changed him perspective.
>>> (2) On the other hand he demanded that they were impenetrable and
>>> hexagonal to explain how their rotation makes electrical balls
>>> move.
>>
>> Hey Luc, what is the 'rule of streamlines'?
>
>This remark would be relevant if the stream of idle wheels, that I
>called electrical balls in my previous messages, was of the same
>nature as the vortices, as it should be in fluid mechanics. But it
>is not so at all as explained at length above. Maxwell's idle wheels
>are like solids and there is no reason they should not penetrate the
>vortices.
I am not interested in attempting to teach fluid theory via newsgroup
traffic...
>>> Were the latter not hexagonal they would not pack properly between
>>> the vortices. Their bouncing around would dissipate energy. Were
>>> they not impenetrable the conveyor belt would not work properly.
>>> You do not think (1) and (2) are compatible, do you ?
>>
>> Yes, why don't you ask an expert in fluid turbulence this question?
>
>I know the answer, don't you ?
I 'think' I do, so do you, and we are not both right :)
>>> You don't think a fluidic vortex can not be penetrated, do you ?
>>
>> But streamlines (lines of force) cannot cross...
>
>But a billiard ball can penetrate a fluidic vortex.
Does a particle of the fluid? Helmholtz theorem says no. His theorems
are:
1 - No fluid particle can have rotation if it did not originally
rotate.
2 - Fluid particles which at any time are part of a vortex line always
belong to that same line.
3 - The product of the cross-sectional area and of the angular velocity
of an infinite thin vortex filament is constant over the whole
length of the filament and keeps the same value even when the
vortex moves. The vortex filaments must therefore be either closed
tubes or end on the boundaries of the fluid.
Hint Luc, #3 is what demands ring vortices...
Item #2 I conceptually find hard to fathom, but it is proven by
Helmholtz, i.e. all particles contained in a vortex are permanently
'locked' in place, rotating in the vortex. If other particles could
penetrate they could, and would, knock these vortex particles out of
place by kinetic interactions.
>>> I repeat that classical mechanics can not explain superfluidity.
>>> How could it explain the sudden disappearance of viscosity or the
>>> dramatic fall of heat capacity just below the critical temperature
>>> for example ? Only few aspects of superfluids can be modeled with
>>> Euler equation.
>>
>> The key to superfluidity IS a near perfect absence of viscosity, and
>> since heat IS a characteristic of dissipation, one should expect it
to
>> be absent from a non dissipatory medium.
>
>You confuse different concepts. The heat capacity is the derivative of
>internal energy with respect to temperature. It falls dramatically
>below the critical temperature because many atoms condensate in the
>superfluid state where they have zero momentum and do therefore no
>more contribute to the internal energy.
>
>> This clearly states that it is the vortices that are stressed and
>> 'distorted' NOT the field particles! Which you'll note he calls
>> particles, not your imaginary balls.
>
>You are right. I had it the other way around. Memory works strangely
>sometimes !
>
>>>> Helmholtz put this issue to rest, look up Helmholtz's/Kelvin
>>>> theorems.
>>
>> Are you saying you are unaware of Helmholtz's theorems for vortices?
>> Ditto for Kelvin circulation theorem?
>>
>> OK then, look them up. They are widely presented and form the
>> foundation of the mathematical description of vortex behavior.
>
>Had you read what followed you would have seen that I quoted Kelvin's
>theorem. As for Helmholtz theorem there is nothing with that name in
>Milne-Thompson but I suppose you refer to the fact that vortex rings
>are permanent, can not be cut, etc ...
>
>Anyway I think I understand what you meant now. You think that fluid
>mechanics can be used to treat Maxwell's model as a whole. But now you
>have to refute all the objections made earlier to continue on this
>path. Maxwell's model is definitively a patchwork of fluid and solid
>mechanics with a lot of wishful postulates.
Again, to what solid mechanics are you referring?
>>>>> To prove that classical electrodynamics can be modeled by fluid
>>>>> mechanics within a Newtonian framework. For example to show that
>>>>> it can be deduced from Euler equation and mass conservation.
>>>>
>>>> But Luc, that's already been done.
>>>
>>> You are lost in a day dream. Why not starting a new thread in which
>>> you would show such a derivation?
>>
>> Why it was referenced herein (this newgroup) two years ago.
>>
>> See: http://home.online.no/~ukarlsen/WholePaper.html
>>
>> A daydream with an internet site address.
>
>As if to have an internet address meant anything !!
>
>The derivation of Maxwell's equations presented there is pure
>crackpotery. Proof:
>
>The electric field E is defined as
> E = -du/dt
>where u is the displacement of a point of the medium from its original
>position. But wait ... what about electrostatics ?... well very
>simple:
> u(t) = - E.t
>which predicts that the displacement diverges toward +infinity when
>time passes :-D
That not a problem for circular motion, or in general.
>Let's continue, such a fun is really addictive. So the magnetic field
>now:
> B = curl u
>So u plays the role of the potential vector and therefore for the
>magnetic field created by an infinite wire we have
> |u| ~ Log r
>where r is the distance to the wire. So again we have a displacement
>diverging toward +infinity :-D
Again, this isn't a problem.
>What kind of medium is that ??????????????
>
>But what could I have expected from a "paper" whose plan is
>
>1 Navier’s equation and electromagnetism.. 5
>2 Some considerations about matter 9
>3 A model of matter 12
>4 Spin. 17
>5 Polarization. 19
>6 The electron. 21
>7 Systems of many particles. 23
>8 De Broglie waves and Schrödinger wave equation. 26
>9 Atomic nuclei and the strong forces. 29
>10 The Big Bang. 32
>11 Gravitation
>
>that is to say from somebody who thinks he has a theory of everything.
IMLO a biased mindset is anti-scientific...
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis
answer your message right now. Meanwhile I suggest you check how
Maxwell explained the production of magnetic fields by electrical
currents as well as induction. You will hopefully understand the
importance of the introduction of idler wheels in Maxwell's model.
--
Luc Bourhis
greyw...@my-deja.com
And when you return, may you be well rested and less pompous.
Since you were ignorant of Maxwell's physical model until the last month
or so, please do not try to pass yourself off as an expert talking to a
tyro.
--
greywolf42
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Richardson
greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And when you return, may you be well rested and less pompous.
I think they used to say "it takes one to know one".
LR
greyw...@my-deja.com
The usual sign is the snipping of parts of a quote to alter the meaning,
as you did.
The full quote was:
"And when you return, may you be well rested and less pompous.
Since you were ignorant of Maxwell's physical model until the last
month or so, please do not try to pass yourself off as an expert
talking to a tyro."
Perhaps you are unaware of Bourhis' recent claims that Maxwell never had
a physical model. Now Bourhis is lecturing the fellow who directed
Bourhis to Maxwell's work.
Larry Richardson
The snipping of the quote may have deleted any reference to the alleged
source of pomposity, but that isn't relevant to my comment. My experience
has been that those who ascribe pomposity to others are desperately (and
usually vainly) seeking to draw attention to someone that might be
considered more pompous than themselves.
LR
Luc Bourhis
This is what Maxwell was obliged to postulate because of Verdet's
experiments and I have explained that just below. But this was not his
initial hypothesis, the one he sketched in the paragraph starting with
"We can no longer" I have quoted above.
>> Since Maxwell's model can not survive without rotating vortices one
>> must therefore have vortices rotating in both directions, with the
>> same number of the both of these kinds. But then idle wheels between
>> vortices rotating in opposite direction must be modeled in a
>> completely different way. Basically Maxwell had to rebuild his model
>> at least starting from part II (since alternating vortices rotating
>> in opposite directions can save part I).
>
> There are, and never were, actual "idler wheels" in Maxwell's model.
> There were flow lines that either went like:
>
> ------------->
> <-------------
>
> a.k.a. opposite to each other (for which Maxwell envisioned friction
> between these without some kind of lubricating mechanism, the idler
> concept gave "him" a conceptual way out of this). Or:
>
> ------------>
> ------------>
>
> Remembering the historical "context" in which he worked (for in modern
> fluid mechanics the diametrical opposing streamline condition simply is
> not a problem)
You have just explained why Maxwell introduced idler wheels in part I
of his paper. But you fail to see that they were given new and
completely different roles in part II and III.
There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are
essential in the modeling of electricity:
- electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels;
- electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made of these
idler wheels;
- induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler
wheels and vortices.
If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were
Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean how
he modeled them without idler wheels.
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
>>>>>> To prove that classical electrodynamics can be modeled by fluid
>>>>>> mechanics within a Newtonian framework. For example to show
>>>>>> that it can be deduced from Euler equation and mass
>>>>>> conservation.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Luc, that's already been done.
>>>>
>>>> You are lost in a day dream. Why not starting a new thread in
>>>> which you would show such a derivation?
>>>
>>> Why it was referenced herein (this newgroup) two years ago.
>>>
>>> See: http://home.online.no/~ukarlsen/WholePaper.html
>>>
>>> A daydream with an internet site address.
>>
>> As if to have an internet address meant anything !!
>>
>> The derivation of Maxwell's equations presented there is pure
>> crackpotery. Proof:
>>
>> The electric field E is defined as
>> E = -du/dt
>> where u is the displacement of a point of the medium from its
>> original position. But wait ... what about electrostatics ?... well
>> very simple:
>> u(t) = - E.t
>> which predicts that the displacement diverges toward +infinity when
>> time passes :-D
>
> That not a problem for circular motion, or in general.
That the displacement in an _elastic_ medium diverges toward +infinity
is not a problem ????? I remind you that the author relied on Navier's
equation and that as any theory of elasticity it is valid only for
small displacements.
>> Let's continue, such a fun is really addictive. So the magnetic field
>> now:
>> B = curl u
>> So u plays the role of the potential vector and therefore for the
>> magnetic field created by an infinite wire we have
>> |u| ~ Log r
>> where r is the distance to the wire. So again we have a
>> displacement diverging toward +infinity :-D
>
> Again, this isn't a problem.
Come on ! You can't be that blinded by your metaphysical prejudices.
No, you are. Is it that you love so much mechanical explanations that
you do not care how realistic is the medium ? Don't you understand that
you accept to use a theory of elasticity completely outside of its
domain of validity ?
And that's not even 10% of the criticisms one can come with. Have you
failed to notice that the density of current is identified with the
volume external forces in this model, the forces created by gravitation
or electrical fields in the usual applications of Navier equation. Huh
? Furthermore the author has just redefined E and B so as to find
Maxwell's equations but as usual in this kind of crackpotery he failed
to reproduce the other half of electrodynamics: the expressions of the
force
F = q (E + v x B)
How can one get that with his definition of E and B ?
--
Luc Bourhis
greyw...@my-deja.com
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Luc Bourhis wrote:
> >> So first I managed to find Maxwell's original text (well I still do
> >> not have the beginning of part II because the corresponding pages
are
> >> missing in the Philosophical Magazine in my library; how unlucky
!).
{snip}
>
> There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are
> essential in the modeling of electricity:
> - electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels;
> - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made of
these
> idler wheels;
> - induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler
> wheels and vortices.
> If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were
> Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean
how
> he modeled them without idler wheels.
>
> --
> Luc Bourhis
Welcome back, Luc.
And that's not a bad straw man. Because what Maxwell named his
inter-vortextual stuff is irrelevant. "Idler wheels" are not necessary
for Maxwell's model. After all, what "is" an idler wheel? Merely a
round object placed between two other wheels.
Let's start with the Maxwell's Hemholtz vortex sponge. This is a series
of ring vortices, all rotating in the same direction. The vortices are
stable in this inviscid fluid, and maintain a constant particle
population. Let's simplify to a two-dimensional slice of these
vortices.
These days we call this a superfluid. But superfluids were unknown in
physics in 1861.
Now let's look at the interface between two adjoining vortices, one over
the other. Because the vortices are rotating in the same (say
clockwise) direction, the adjoining portions of the vortices are moving
in opposite directions. This was the crux of Maxwell's dissatisfaction
with his first model.
Maxwell was a good mechanicist, and could not see why these two
structures would not "rub" up against one another, and therefore lose
energy to friction. Now Maxwell postulated that there are particles in
between these vortices. These particles ARE the substance of the
aether. Now if these particles have some physical extension, they can
be "rolled" between the two vortices. This "rolling" will mediate the
"friction".
Now this rolling motion is just LIKE that of an idler wheel. It is NOT
and idler wheel. Think of the fluid between the vortices as a plane of
marbles.
Now if the vortices move at the same rate of speed, then the {centers of
our particles} will not move. If the upper vortex moves faster, then
this tangential speed will be transmitted to the {"marbles"}. Since the
upper surface of the {"marbles"} is moving faster than the lower surface
of the {"marbles"}, the {center of the marble} will move to the left.
This flow of {"marbles"} then becomes electricity in Maxwell's model.
Now I don't know if Brits in 1861 played with marbles. But an idler
wheel can be placed into the above description of Maxwell's model
without changing the point. Which is that differential rotation in the
inviscid fluid (a changing magnetic field) will drive the motion of
particles between the vortices (an electric current).
Maxwell never stated that he thought his model "really" had idler wheels
machined by elves (or somebody). An idler wheel is a common device to a
mechanicist. So he could have called them idler wheels, or marbles, or
aether corpuscles.
Let's take our example one step further.
Forget the marbles. Forget the wheels. Let's look at the flow of
inviscid fluid between our vortices. We have two rotating vortices. In
between our vortices is a sheared laminar flow field of aether fluid.
Now if the vortices move at the same rate of speed, then the {average
position of our fluid} will not move. If the upper vortex moves
faster, then this tangential speed will be transmitted to the {fluid}.
Since the upper surface of the {fluid} is moving faster than the lower
surface of the {fluid}, the {average position of the fluid} will move to
the left. This flow of {fluid} then becomes electricity in Maxwell's
model.
So Maxwell's model does not need pre-machined "idler wheels." It merely
needs something in between the two vortices. Any more than Einstein's
theory needs mechanical trains and clocks.
So, let's rephrase your observations:
> - electrical currents are just streams of these {particles/fluid};
> - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made of
these {particles/fluid};
> - induction is explained by the perfect {shear} contact between
{particles/fluid} and vortices.
I don't see anything wrong with this at all. A rose by any other name
would smell as sweet.
You may note that perfect rolling contact is a perfect shear field in
this model, because Maxwell assumed zero moment of inertia to his
wheels/particles/fluid.
As a result of this model, Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism (a
surprise). And predicted superconductivity 100 years before it was
observed.
So what's wrong with "idler wheels?" Are you claiming that Maxwell
required pre-machined, intelligently-designed idler wheels for his model
to work? Or was he merely alluding to round objects?
Luc Bourhis
> Let's start with the Maxwell's Hemholtz vortex sponge. This is a series
> of ring vortices, all rotating in the same direction. The vortices are
> stable in this inviscid fluid, and maintain a constant particle
> population. Let's simplify to a two-dimensional slice of these
> vortices.
>
> These days we call this a superfluid. But superfluids were unknown in
> physics in 1861.
You have no idea about what is a superfluid.
> Now let's look at the interface between two adjoining vortices, one
> over the other. Because the vortices are rotating in the same (say
> clockwise) direction, the adjoining portions of the vortices are
> moving in opposite directions. This was the crux of Maxwell's
> dissatisfaction with his first model.
That's Part I of Maxwell's paper whereas I was interested in how
Maxwell used his idler wheels in part II and III. But you have
addressed my questions later ...
> Maxwell was a good mechanicist, and could not see why these two
> structures would not "rub" up against one another, and therefore lose
> energy to friction. Now Maxwell postulated that there are particles
> in between these vortices. These particles ARE the substance of the
> aether.
I have already demolished that argument. Maxwell postulated that there
was one and only one layer of particles between the vortices and that
they were constantly in contact with them. That's completely
unrealistic in any known fluid.
> [...]
>
> Now this rolling motion is just LIKE that of an idler wheel. It is NOT
> and idler wheel. Think of the fluid between the vortices as a plane of
> marbles.
That's funny because idler wheels is the term used by Maxwell. In the
early stage of my discussion with Paul Stowe I used the wording
"electrical balls" because of their role in the modeling of
electricity. I returned to idler wheels to please Paul after he harshly
pointed out that Maxwell had never ever used this phrasing. And now you
criticize my semantic choices !
> Now if the vortices move at the same rate of speed, then the {centers of
> our particles} will not move. If the upper vortex moves faster, then
> this tangential speed will be transmitted to the {"marbles"}. Since the
> upper surface of the {"marbles"} is moving faster than the lower surface
> of the {"marbles"}, the {center of the marble} will move to the left.
> This flow of {"marbles"} then becomes electricity in Maxwell's model.
Yes, that was my point: idler wheels are not used only to solve the
problem of friction between two adjoining vortices but also to model
electricity and induction.
> Now I don't know if Brits in 1861 played with marbles. But an idler
> wheel can be placed into the above description of Maxwell's model
> without changing the point. Which is that differential rotation in the
> inviscid fluid (a changing magnetic field) will drive the motion of
> particles between the vortices (an electric current).
>
> Maxwell never stated that he thought his model "really" had idler wheels
> machined by elves (or somebody). An idler wheel is a common device to a
> mechanicist. So he could have called them idler wheels, or marbles, or
> aether corpuscles.
Whatever were Maxwell's idler wheels magneto-optic effect demolished
his model. Indeed to predict correctly the rotation of the polarisation
plane of light propagating in vacuum when a strong magnetic field is
set up in the direction of propagation, Maxwell had to postulate that
the average angular speed of the vortices was zero. The only way to do
that is to have adjoining vortices rotating in opposite directions. But
then the idler wheels between them should be put in translation,
creating electrical currents which are not observed. Game over. Period.
--
Luc Bourhis
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
You're not making any sense???
>>> Since Maxwell's model can not survive without rotating vortices one
>>> must therefore have vortices rotating in both directions, with the
>>> same number of the both of these kinds. But then idle wheels between
>>> vortices rotating in opposite direction must be modeled in a
>>> completely different way. Basically Maxwell had to rebuild his model
>>> at least starting from part II (since alternating vortices rotating
>>> in opposite directions can save part I).
>>
>> There are, and never were, actual "idler wheels" in Maxwell's model.
>> There were flow lines that either went like:
>>
>> ------------->
>> <-------------
>>
>> a.k.a. opposite to each other (for which Maxwell envisioned friction
>> between these without some kind of lubricating mechanism, the idler
>> concept gave "him" a conceptual way out of this). Or:
>>
>> ------------>
>> ------------>
>>
>> Remembering the historical "context" in which he worked (for in modern
>> fluid mechanics the diametrical opposing streamline condition simply is
>> not a problem)
>
> You have just explained why Maxwell introduced idler wheels in part I
> of his paper. But you fail to see that they were given new and
> completely different roles in part II and III.
Hmmm, let see. In kinetic theory, pressure is the result of particulate
impacts. So, we explain pressure as such. By your logic above, since
we have assigned particles the function of pressure they cannot possibly
have any other properties or function? Great argument Luc...
> There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are
> essential in the modeling of electricity:
> - electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels;
> - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made
> of these idler wheels;
> - induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler
> wheels and vortices.
>
> If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were
> Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean how
> he modeled them without idler wheels.
Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute 'olive oil' for
Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same functionality.
Paul Stowe
greyw...@my-deja.com
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Let's start with the Maxwell's Hemholtz vortex sponge. This is a
series
> > of ring vortices, all rotating in the same direction. The vortices
are
> > stable in this inviscid fluid, and maintain a constant particle
> > population. Let's simplify to a two-dimensional slice of these
> > vortices.
> >
> > These days we call this a superfluid. But superfluids were unknown
in
> > physics in 1861.
>
>
> > over the other. Because the vortices are rotating in the same (say
> > clockwise) direction, the adjoining portions of the vortices are
> > moving in opposite directions. This was the crux of Maxwell's
> > dissatisfaction with his first model.
>
> Maxwell used his idler wheels in part II and III. But you have
> addressed my questions later ...
>
> > structures would not "rub" up against one another, and therefore
lose
> > energy to friction. Now Maxwell postulated that there are particles
> > in between these vortices. These particles ARE the substance of the
> > aether.
>
> was one and only one layer of particles between the vortices and that
> they were constantly in contact with them. That's completely
> unrealistic in any known fluid.
>
Not true. You've merely made unfounded assertions. Maxwell never
postulated that there was one and only one layer of particles between
the vortices.
> > [...]
> >
> > Now this rolling motion is just LIKE that of an idler wheel. It is
NOT
> > and idler wheel. Think of the fluid between the vortices as a plane
of
> > marbles.
>
> That's funny because idler wheels is the term used by Maxwell.
Yes. Now what is an idler wheel? It is merely something that rolls.
> In the
> early stage of my discussion with Paul Stowe I used the wording
> "electrical balls" because of their role in the modeling of
> electricity. I returned to idler wheels to please Paul after he
harshly
> pointed out that Maxwell had never ever used this phrasing. And now
you
> criticize my semantic choices !
Not a bad diversion. But I don't care what that word is. You are
trying to arbitrarily limit and deride the theory because of the words
used. Can we focus on concepts and essences?
>
> > Now if the vortices move at the same rate of speed, then the
{centers of
> > our particles} will not move. If the upper vortex moves faster,
then
> > this tangential speed will be transmitted to the {"marbles"}. Since
the
> > upper surface of the {"marbles"} is moving faster than the lower
surface
> > of the {"marbles"}, the {center of the marble} will move to the
left.
> > This flow of {"marbles"} then becomes electricity in Maxwell's
model.
>
> Yes, that was my point: idler wheels are not used only to solve the
> problem of friction between two adjoining vortices but also to model
> electricity and induction.
Good. We agree.
>
> > Now I don't know if Brits in 1861 played with marbles. But an idler
> > wheel can be placed into the above description of Maxwell's model
> > without changing the point. Which is that differential rotation in
the
> > inviscid fluid (a changing magnetic field) will drive the motion of
> > particles between the vortices (an electric current).
> >
> > Maxwell never stated that he thought his model "really" had idler
wheels
> > machined by elves (or somebody). An idler wheel is a common device
to a
> > mechanicist. So he could have called them idler wheels, or marbles,
or
> > aether corpuscles.
>
> Whatever were Maxwell's idler wheels magneto-optic effect demolished
> his model.
Huh?
> Indeed to predict correctly the rotation of the
polarisation
> plane of light propagating in vacuum when a strong magnetic field is
> set up in the direction of propagation, Maxwell had to postulate that
> the average angular speed of the vortices was zero.
Huh? I'd be interested in the equation number where Maxwell ever
postulated this.
> The only way to do
> that is to have adjoining vortices rotating in opposite directions.
But
> then the idler wheels between them should be put in translation,
> creating electrical currents which are not observed. Game over.
Period.
>
Groan. You get translation of particles without counter-rotating
vortices. All you need is differential rotation rates of the vortices.
And you're still focused on single particles.
Which, I guess is why you snipped the part about fluid layers having the
same effect.:
>>Let's take our example one step further.
>>
>>Forget the marbles. Forget the wheels. Let's look at the flow of
>>inviscid fluid between our vortices. We have two rotating vortices.
>>In between our vortices is a sheared laminar flow field of aether
>>fluid.
>>
>>Now if the vortices move at the same rate of speed, then the {average
>>position of our fluid} will not move. If the upper vortex moves
>>faster, then this tangential speed will be transmitted to the {fluid}.
>> Since the upper surface of the {fluid} is moving faster than the
>>lower surface of the {fluid}, the {average position of the fluid} will
>>move to the left. This flow of {fluid} then becomes electricity in
>>Maxwell's model.
>>
>>So Maxwell's model does not need pre-machined "idler wheels." It
>>merely needs something in between the two vortices. Any more than
>>Einstein's theory needs mechanical trains and clocks.
greyw...@my-deja.com
> Whatever were Maxwell's idler wheels magneto-optic effect demolished
> his model. Indeed to predict correctly the rotation of the
polarisation
> plane of light propagating in vacuum when a strong magnetic field is
> set up in the direction of propagation, Maxwell had to postulate that
> the average angular speed of the vortices was zero. The only way to do
> that is to have adjoining vortices rotating in opposite directions.
But
> then the idler wheels between them should be put in translation,
> creating electrical currents which are not observed. Game over.
Period.
>
> --
> Luc Bourhis
>
Sorry, Luc. I think I answered the wrong question here last night.
You have claimed the only way that Maxwell's model can get a
zero "average angular speed of the vortices" for empty space is for each
set of vortices to be counter-rotating with each other. You have
incorrectly attempted to require the universe to be a single "molecule"
of Maxwell's medium.
Maxwell did not postulate or require that all the vortices in the
universe (or even in macroscopic bodies) be lined up in the same
preferred direction in order for his "rolling contact" to be maintained.
Maxwell postulated that his medium was made up of vast numbers of
"molecules" or "elements" that were oriented in random directions. Each
"molecule" contained an aligned set of vortices. But any macroscopice
measurement would enclose vast numbers of "molecules" of medium that
would be randomly oriented -- until a magnetic or electric field was
impressed from outside.
This is explained in the very beginning of Maxwell's "On Physical Lines
of Force."
From just before his "First Proposition.":
'=========================================================
Every vortex is essentially dipolar, the two extremities of its axis
being distinguished by the direction of its revolution as observed from
those points.
We shall suppose at present that all the vortices in any one part of the
field are revolving in the same direction about axes nearly parallel,
but that in passing from one part of the field to another, the direction
of the axes, the velocity of rotation, and the density of the substance
of the vortices are subject to change.
[Maxwell is describing a series of fluid "elements" or grains within the
fluid.]
We shall investigate the resultant mechanical effect upon an element of
the medium, and from the mathematical expression of this resultant we
shall deduce the physical character of its different parts.
[Note that Maxwell's detailed analysis of parallel vortices would be
contained in one element (or grain or "molecule") of the medium.]
'=========================================================
This is from just after his equation 34:
'=========================================================
It appears therefore that, according to our hypothesis, an electric
current is represented by the transference of the moveable particles
interposed between the neighbouring vortices. We may conceive that
these particles are very small compared with the size of a vortex, and
that the mass of all the particles together is inappreciable compared
with that of the vortices, and that a great many vortices, with their
surrounding particles, are contained in a single complete molecule of
the medium. The particles must be conceived to roll without sliding
between the vortices which they separate, and not to touch each other,
so that, as long as they remain within the same complete molecule, there
is no loss of energy by resistance. When, however, there is a general
transference of particles in one direction, they must pass from one
molecule to another, and in doing so, may experience resistance, so as
to waste electrical energy and generate heat.
[The above analysis predicts superconductivity (in 1861!) within "a
single complete molecule of the medium." Thus, superconductivity would
result from enlarging the "grain boundaries" or the "molecule" of the
superfluid aether to macroscopic size.]
'=========================================================
So there is no problem at all. If you can measure any electrical
resistance (like for "empty space"), then you are enclosing multiple
molecules of Maxwell's medium.
I think that last sentence is a good tongue-twister.
Luc Bourhis
>> Maxwell postulated that there was one and only one layer of
>> particles between the vortices and that they were constantly in
>> contact with them. That's completely unrealistic in any known fluid.
>>
>
> Not true. You've merely made unfounded assertions. Maxwell never
> postulated that there was one and only one layer of particles between
> the vortices.
LOL. That's so ludicrous that I am wondering whether I should answer or
not. What about the famous sketch in Maxwell's paper ? The one with the
hexagonal vortices and _one_ layer of idle wheels between them ? You
know what I am talking about, don't you ?
>> And now you criticize my semantic choices [about how to call idler wheels] !
>
> Not a bad diversion. But I don't care what that word is. You are
> trying to arbitrarily limit and deride the theory because of the words
> used. Can we focus on concepts and essences?
You are the one who wanted to argue about wording in this thread. On
the contrary my answer to Paul was entirely dedicated to a factual
discussion of the magneto-optic effect.
>> Whatever were Maxwell's idler wheels magneto-optic effect demolished
>> his model.
>
> Huh?
>
>> Indeed to predict correctly the rotation of the polarisation plane
>> of light propagating in vacuum when a strong magnetic field is set
>> up in the direction of propagation, Maxwell had to postulate that
>> the average angular speed of the vortices was zero.
>
> Huh? I'd be interested in the equation number where Maxwell ever
> postulated this.
I have already explained that in the first message you have answered in
this branch ! Let's try again. On page 88 of part IV Maxwell stated
that
<< the only effect which the rotation of the vortices will have on the
light will be to make the plane of polarization rotate in the same
direction as the vortices, through an angle proportional--
[...]
(F) to the capacity for magnetic induction. >>
The problem is that this capacity is always positive in Maxwell's
model, for it is the density of vortices. So his theory implies a
rotation which is always in the same direction, greater in paramagnetic
substances than in vacuum and greater in vacuum than in diamagnetic
substances.
However no rotation of the polarization plane of light is observed in
vacuum. Since in Maxwell's model the magneto-optic effect is the
average result of the action of each vortex on light, this means that
their average angular speed must be null in vacuum.
Another related problem is that Verdet's experiments showed that the
direction of rotation in diamagnetic substances is opposite to the
direction in paramagnetic substances, contradicting the prediction of
Maxwell's model I reminded above. Both problems are closely linked
since vacuum is the intermediate state between paramagnetic and
diamagnetic ones. As a consequence Maxwell stated clearly at the end of
part IV that
<< We can no longer, therefore, consider diamagnetic bodies as being
those whose coefficient of magnetic induction is less than that of
space empty of gross matter. We must admit the diamagnetic state to be
the opposite of the paramagnetic; and that the vortices, or at least
the influential majority of them, in diamagnetic substances, revolve in
the direction in which positive electricity revolves in the magnetizing
bobbin, while in paramagnetic substances they revolve in the opposite
direction >>
But since vacuum is the intermediate state between diamagnetic and
paramagnetic state, this shows again that the average rotation speed of
vortices must be zero.
>> The only way to do that is to have adjoining vortices rotating in
>> opposite directions. But then the idler wheels between them should
>> be put in translation, creating electrical currents which are not
>> observed. Game over. Period.
>>
>
> Groan. You get translation of particles without counter-rotating
> vortices. All you need is differential rotation rates of the vortices.
Counter-rotating vortices _imply_ differential rotation rates and
therefore electrical currents. In vacuum !
> And you're still focused on single particles.
Because this is what Maxwell used in his model. For obvious reasons.
Try to think about it and you will understand that with two layers of
particles they can not always be in contact with the vortices. They
will bounce between adjoining ones. But that is precisely to avoid such
behaviours that Maxwell introduced hexagonal vortices. He wanted the
idler wheels to pack perfectly with the vortices.
> Which, I guess is why you snipped the part about fluid layers having the
> same effect.:
I snipped the end of your message because it was not relevant to the
discussion of magneto-optic effect. I repeat that whatever are idler
wheels, but as long as they have the properties Maxwell assigned to
them, his model is in trouble here. So please stop playing with
semantic because my arguments are not about how unrealistic are idler
wheels but about the internal contradictions in Maxwell's model after
accepting all the hypotheses he made.
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
> You're not making any sense ???
You are at bay, aren't you ? That's surely why you switched to the
that's-plainly-silly mode in order to avoid precise discussions which
would expose your being consistently wrong. But you underestimate badly
the intelligence of the readers, well at least of those who might be
interested in discussing such prehistoric stuff.
Anyway contrary to you I am proud to always come with well crafted
arguments. So let's try to summarize ...
(1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the
same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in diamagnetic
substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field).
(2) In part IV Maxwell showed that this model predicted for
magneto-optic effect a rotation of the plane of polarization in the
same direction in any substance: the rotation angle being bigger in
paramagnetic substances than in vacuum, and bigger in vacuum than in
diamagnetic substances.
(3) Verdet's experiment exhibited on the contrary opposite directions
of rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media -- and no rotation
whatsoever in vacuum.
Conclusion: (2) and therefore (1) is refuted experimentally and Maxwell
had to change his mind and came with the explanation you illustrated
with sketches in your last message in this thread, i.e. opposite
directions of vortex rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media,
and null average rotation speed in vacuum -- Maxwell's himself admitted
he had to modify what he had done until that point. But then the
modeling of electricity in part II and III predicted electrical
currents in vacuum. Maxwell had never ever published any attempt to
solve these difficulties.
>> You have just explained why Maxwell introduced idler wheels in part I
>> of his paper. But you fail to see that they were given new and
>> completely different roles in part II and III.
>
> Hmmm, let see. In kinetic theory, pressure is the result of particulate
> impacts. So, we explain pressure as such. By your logic above, since
> we have assigned particles the function of pressure they cannot possibly
> have any other properties or function? Great argument Luc...
Rhetoric will not help you making your case. In part II and III
Maxwell's idler wheels became the core of his explanation of
electricity. Electrical currents are flows of these particles.
Electrical tension is modeled by the pressure of the gas made of these
idler wheels. Induction is explained by the effect of a differential
rotation rates of adjoining vortices on the motion of the idler wheels.
These are new roles that were not foreseeable by readers in part I.
>> There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are
>> essential in the modeling of electricity:
>> - electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels;
>> - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made
>> of these idler wheels;
>> - induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler
>> wheels and vortices.
>>
>> If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were
>> Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean how
>> he modeled them without idler wheels.
>
> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute 'olive oil' for
> Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same functionality.
If and only if
- olive oil is made of spherical particles;
- there is only one layer of these particles between vortices;
- particles roll without sliding between vortices;
- they are never in contact with each others;
etc ...
Otherwise you are not discussing Maxwell's model but your reworking of
it. But then I am entitled to ask you to write it down with the same
precision Maxwell used.
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
> Sorry, Luc. I think I answered the wrong question here last night.
One can wonder what you will come with this time to salvage Maxwell's
model ....
> You have claimed the only way that Maxwell's model can get a zero
> "average angular speed of the vortices" for empty space is for each
> set of vortices to be counter-rotating with each other. You have
> incorrectly attempted to require the universe to be a single
> "molecule" of Maxwell's medium.
In fact, independently from idler wheels, it is impossible to have a
zero average angular speed in a region where a magnetic field is set
up. Yet another argument against Maxwell's model as you will see ...
> Maxwell did not postulate or require that all the vortices in the
> universe (or even in macroscopic bodies) be lined up in the same
> preferred direction in order for his "rolling contact" to be
> maintained. Maxwell postulated that his medium was made up of vast
> numbers of "molecules" or "elements" that were oriented in random
> directions. Each "molecule" contained an aligned set of vortices.
> But any macroscopice measurement would enclose vast numbers of
> "molecules" of medium that would be randomly oriented
I agree but ....
> -- until a magnetic or electric field was impressed from outside.
... **this is precisely the situation for the magneto-optic effect**. A
strong _uniform_ magnetic field is established -- and light rays are
sent parallel to the magnetic lines. In Maxwell's model _all_ vortices
have then their axes in the direction of the magnetic field and all of
them rotate in the same direction, because of the uniformity of the
field. Even if I accept to twiddle Maxwell model, at least the average
angular velocity must be non zero and in the direction of the magnetic
lines. In any case that would result in a non null magneto-optic effect
which is not observed. All of this makes my argument about electrical
currents in vacuum unnecessary since part I is incompatible with the
observed magneto-optic effect in vacuum with or without idler wheels.
How Maxwell's model can then be saved is then a matter of conjectures
since Maxwell had never ever addressed this problem. That would have
required him to rework everything, starting from his part I dedicated
to pure magnetic phenomena.
A final note. What is funny is that even if a zero angular velocity was
possible your argument would still be highly suspect. Indeed if the
average angular velocity were zero because of the random distribution
of that velocity between the molecules of the medium, one would expect
some statistical fluctuation about that mean value. This should create
weak temporary non zero magneto-optic effect in vacuum. You must then
explain why this has never been observed. Ever.
> [.....]
>
> This is from just after his equation 34:
> '=========================================================
> [...] When, however, there is a general transference of particles
> in one direction, they must pass from one molecule to another, and
> in doing so, may experience resistance, so as to waste electrical
> energy and generate heat.
Let me point out that Maxwell had never ever explained why there was
this resistance.
> [The above analysis predicts superconductivity (in 1861!) within "a
> single complete molecule of the medium." Thus, superconductivity
> would result from enlarging the "grain boundaries" or the "molecule"
> of the superfluid aether to macroscopic size.]
You, Paul Stowe and Dennis McCarthy keep referring to superfluid to
support your views. That's utterly ridiculous since there is no way to
model them without quantum mechanics. No classical model can predict
all aspects of superfluids. You can not explain why the heat capacity
changes abruptly its slope below the critical temperature. You can not
explain the difference between Helium 3 and 4. You can not explain why
electrons have to form pairs to make a superfluid (superconductivity).
You can not explain the quantization of vortices. And so on.
--
Luc Bourhis
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> You're not making any sense ???
>
> You are at bay, aren't you ?
Huh?
> That's surely why you switched to the that's-plainly-silly mode in
> order to avoid precise discussions which would expose your being
> consistently wrong.
Now Luc, I have not gotten malicious. My statement was a clear,
concise portrayal of how I read your response. Prehaps you could
try being more clear (and detailed).
> But you underestimate badly the intelligence of the readers, well
> at least of those who might be interested in discussing such
> prehistoric stuff.
Bias showing again Luc? Being pendantic can be useful only up to a
point, beyond that, it become obtrusive.
> Anyway contrary to you I am proud to always come with well crafted
> arguments. So let's try to summarize ...
Sure we all think this (in our own minds). What matters is if others
"get it" and form the same opinion...
>(1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the
> same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in
> diamagnetic substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field).
Now Luc, if the above were to be literally interpreted as you claim,
we would have one and the same value for the paramagnetic state, the
vacuum state, and the paramagnetic state. In other words, there would
be NO para or di magnetic states. I've re-read this first section
and can find no reference to where Maxwell makes such a claim...
>(2) In part IV Maxwell showed that this model predicted for
> magneto-optic effect a rotation of the plane of polarization
> in the same direction in any substance: the rotation angle
> being bigger in paramagnetic substances than in vacuum, and
> bigger in vacuum than in diamagnetic substances.
>
>(3) Verdet's experiment exhibited on the contrary opposite directions
> of rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media -- and no rotation
> whatsoever in vacuum.
Can you attempt to show me (us) how you get the 'interpretation' you
enunciate for #2. Rotation for ring vortices of reverse orientation, is,
for example, reversed. Therefore, anything following the streamlines of
such systems would reverse for such an inversion.
> Conclusion: (2) and therefore (1) is refuted experimentally and Maxwell
> had to change his mind and came with the explanation you illustrated
> with sketches in your last message in this thread, i.e. opposite
> directions of vortex rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media,
> and null average rotation speed in vacuum -- Maxwell's himself admitted
> he had to modify what he had done until that point. But then the
> modeling of electricity in part II and III predicted electrical
> currents in vacuum. Maxwell had never ever published any attempt to
> solve these difficulties.
Where, I've re-read part four and can't find where Maxwell recants by
saying that claims he made in part one must be retracted.
>>> You have just explained why Maxwell introduced idler wheels in part I
>>> of his paper. But you fail to see that they were given new and
>>> completely different roles in part II and III.
>>
>> Hmmm, let see. In kinetic theory, pressure is the result of particulate
>> impacts. So, we explain pressure as such. By your logic above, since
>> we have assigned particles the function of pressure they cannot possibly
>> have any other properties or function? Great argument Luc...
>
> Rhetoric will not help you making your case. In part II and III
> Maxwell's idler wheels became the core of his explanation of
> electricity. Electrical currents are flows of these particles.
> Electrical tension is modeled by the pressure of the gas made of these
> idler wheels. Induction is explained by the effect of a differential
> rotation rates of adjoining vortices on the motion of the idler wheels.
> These are new roles that were not foreseeable by readers in part I.
There were no 'actual' idler wheels in Maxwell's model. I'm very sorry
that you cannot recognize an illustrative analogy, but at some point
(which has come) it become ridiculous to continue to argue such an
obvious point.
>>> There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are
>>> essential in the modeling of electricity:
>>>
>>> - electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels;
>>> - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made
>>> of these idler wheels;
>>> - induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler
>>> wheels and vortices.
>>>
>>> If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were
>>> Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean how
>>> he modeled them without idler wheels.
>>
>> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute 'olive oil' for
>> Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same functionality.
>
>If and only if
>
> - olive oil is made of spherical particles;
> - there is only one layer of these particles between vortices;
What's wrong with three particles, or five, or seven, ...etc. In fact, any
odd number alignment will do.
One 'could' construct a mechanical analog to Maxwell's model using segmented
rollers and such an oil.
> - particles roll without sliding between vortices;
> - they are never in contact with each others;
> etc ...
>
> Otherwise you are not discussing Maxwell's model but your reworking of
> it. But then I am entitled to ask you to write it down with the same
> precision Maxwell used.
Where is the deviation Luc?
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis
> Luc Bourhis wrote:
>
>> (1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the
>> same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in
>> diamagnetic substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field).
>
> Now Luc, if the above were to be literally interpreted as you claim,
> we would have one and the same value for the paramagnetic state, the
> vacuum state, and the paramagnetic state. In other words, there would
> be NO para or di magnetic states. I've re-read this first section
> and can find no reference to where Maxwell makes such a claim...
Paramagnetic, vacuum and diamagnetic substances are differentiated by a
quantity related to the density of the fluid, the magnetic inductive
capacity mu:
mu < 1 : diamagnetic
mu = 1 : vacuum
mu > 1 : paramagnetic
Maxwell explained that in a short comment on p. 174 of part I, just
after the equation (21). Then he repeated in part IV that mu is smaller
in diamagnetic than in vacuum, in the citation I have already given in
this thread.
>> (2) In part IV Maxwell showed that this model predicted for
>> magneto-optic effect a rotation of the plane of polarization
>> in the same direction in any substance: the rotation angle
>> being bigger in paramagnetic substances than in vacuum, and
>> bigger in vacuum than in diamagnetic substances.
>>
>> (3) Verdet's experiment exhibited on the contrary opposite directions
>> of rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media -- and no rotation
>> whatsoever in vacuum.
>
> Can you attempt to show me (us) how you get the 'interpretation' you
> enunciate for #2.
That's not an interpretation at all. (2) is just a summary of Maxwell's
own writings in part IV. On p. 88
<<In the following investigation I have found that the only effect
which the rotation of the vortices will have on the light will be to
make the plane of polarization rotate in the _same_ direction as the
vortices, through an angle proportional --
(A) to the thickness of the substance,
(B) to the resolved part of the magnetic force parallel to the ray,
(C) to the index of refraction of the ray,
(D) inversely to the square of the wave-length n air,
(E) to the _mean radius_ of the vortices,
(F) to the capacity for magnetic induction >>
Combined with the classification (F) leads clearly to my above
paragraph.
> Rotation for ring vortices of reverse orientation, is,
> for example, reversed. Therefore, anything following the streamlines of
> such systems would reverse for such an inversion.
I do not get your point. Note that my (2) is Maxwell's prediction
_before_ the modification he suggested at the end of part IV to agree
with Verdet's experiments. At that point all vortices rotate in the
same direction wrt the direction of the magnetic field.
>> Conclusion: (2) and therefore (1) is refuted experimentally and Maxwell
>> had to change his mind and came with the explanation you illustrated
>> with sketches in your last message in this thread, i.e. opposite
>> directions of vortex rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media,
>> and null average rotation speed in vacuum -- Maxwell's himself admitted
>> he had to modify what he had done until that point. But then the
>> modeling of electricity in part II and III predicted electrical
>> currents in vacuum. Maxwell had never ever published any attempt to
>> solve these difficulties.
>
> Where, I've re-read part four and can't find where Maxwell recants by
> saying that claims he made in part one must be retracted.
I have already cited the relevant paragraph for God sake ! Here it is
again
<< On our theory, the direction of the rotation of the plane of
polarization depends on that of the mean moment of momenta, or angular
momentum, of the molecular vortices; and since M. Verdet has discovered
that [para]magnetic substances have an effect on light opposite to that
of diamagnetic substances, it follows that the molecular rotation must
be opposite in the two classes of substances.
We can no longer, therefore, consider diamagnetic bodies as being those
whose coefficient of magnetic induction is less than that of space
empty of gross matter. We must admit the diamagnetic state to be the
opposite of the paramagnetic; and that the vortices, or at least the
influential majority of them, in diamagnetic substances, revolve in the
direction in which positive electricity revolves in the magnetizing
bobbin, while in paramagnetic substances they revolve in the opposite
direction >>
Note the "We can no longer" and the "We must admit". As reminded above
that "diamagnetic bodies [are] those whose coefficient of magnetic
induction is less than that of space empty of gross matter" was one of
Maxwell's conclusion in part I.
>> [...] In part II and III Maxwell's idler wheels became the core of
>> his explanation of electricity. Electrical currents are flows of
>> these particles. Electrical tension is modeled by the pressure of
>> the gas made of these idler wheels. Induction is explained by the
>> effect of a differential rotation rates of adjoining vortices on
>> the motion of the idler wheels. These are new roles that were not
>> foreseeable by readers in part I.
>
> There were no 'actual' idler wheels in Maxwell's model. I'm very sorry
> that you cannot recognize an illustrative analogy, but at some point
> (which has come) it become ridiculous to continue to argue such an
> obvious point.
Sigh. In this thread I do not care for the name of the particles
between the vortices. I have not criticized Maxwell's model because his
idler wheels are an unrealistic mechanistic model here. This was a
previous discussion which is now over. Here I am accepting all his
hypotheses. Idler wheels can be whatever you want, as long as they have
the properties assigned to them by Maxwell in his model -- I have
reminded some of them above. I can call them electrical particles or
interstitial particles if you prefer. In this thread I just wanted to
show that Maxwell's model is not compatible with the magneto-optic
effect. It would be pointless to discuss how realistic is his theory if
it is refuted experimentally, wouldn't it ?
>>> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute
>>> 'olive oil' for Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same
>>> functionality.
>>
>> If and only if
>>
>> - olive oil is made of spherical particles;
>> - there is only one layer of these particles between vortices;
>
> What's wrong with three particles, or five, or seven, ...etc. In fact, any
> odd number alignment will do.
For your idea to work one must have a row of particles in contact with
each others, the two at both ends being in contact with adjoining
vortices. That's obviously not a stable configuration, especially when
the particles will translate. So in fact the particles will not stay
permanently in contact with the vortices and they will bounce between
them actually. But that's precisely to avoid such kind of situations
that Maxwell introduced hexagonal vortices, so that vortices and
electrical particles pack perfectly.
> One 'could' construct a mechanical analog to Maxwell's model using segmented
> rollers and such an oil.
Sorry I do understand what you mean by "segmented roller".
>> - particles roll without sliding between vortices;
>> - they are never in contact with each others;
>> etc ...
>>
>> Otherwise you are not discussing Maxwell's model but your reworking of
>> it. But then I am entitled to ask you to write it down with the same
>> precision Maxwell used.
>
> Where is the deviation Luc?
??????
--
Luc Bourhis
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> Luc Bourhis wrote:
>>
>>> (1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the
>>> same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in
>>> diamagnetic substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field).
>>
>> Now Luc, if the above were to be literally interpreted as you claim,
>> we would have one and the same value for the paramagnetic state, the
>> vacuum state, and the paramagnetic state. In other words, there would
>> be NO para or di magnetic states. I've re-read this first section
>> and can find no reference to where Maxwell makes such a claim...
>
> Paramagnetic, vacuum and diamagnetic substances are differentiated by a
> quantity related to the density of the fluid, the magnetic inductive
> capacity mu:
> mu < 1 : diamagnetic
> mu = 1 : vacuum
> mu > 1 : paramagnetic
> Maxwell explained that in a short comment on p. 174 of part I, just
> after the equation (21). Then he repeated in part IV that mu is smaller
> in diamagnetic than in vacuum, in the citation I have already given in
> this thread.
OK, but that was NOT the issue. The issue was your statement that ALL of
those zillions of vortices MUST line up in the requisite manner for the
Para, neutral, and Di magnetic condition. You seem to be INSISTING on
a all or nothing situation. If ALL vortice aligned for a paramagnetic
state we'd have mu (max) if ALL vortices aligned for a diamagnetic
state we'd have mu (min) etc. But that is not, nor never was, what Maxwell
was advocating.
>>> (2) In part IV Maxwell showed that this model predicted for
>>> magneto-optic effect a rotation of the plane of polarization
>>> in the same direction in any substance: the rotation angle
>>> being bigger in paramagnetic substances than in vacuum, and
>>> bigger in vacuum than in diamagnetic substances.
>>>
>>> (3) Verdet's experiment exhibited on the contrary opposite directions
>>> of rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media -- and no rotation
>>> whatsoever in vacuum.
>>
>> Can you attempt to show me (us) how you get the 'interpretation' you
>> enunciate for #2.
>
> That's not an interpretation at all. (2) is just a summary of Maxwell's
> own writings in part IV. On p. 88
> <<In the following investigation I have found that the only effect
> which the rotation of the vortices will have on the light will be
> to make the plane of polarization rotate in the _same_ direction
> as the vortices, through an angle proportional --
> (A) to the thickness of the substance,
> (B) to the resolved part of the magnetic force parallel to the ray,
> (C) to the index of refraction of the ray,
> (D) inversely to the square of the wave-length n air,
> (E) to the _mean radius_ of the vortices,
> (F) to the capacity for magnetic induction >>
> Combined with the classification (F) leads clearly to my above
> paragraph.
How? Ring vortices have two distinct rotations, poloidal, and torroidal.
When aligned (say with their axis of symmetry center flow up) let the
torroidal rotation be clockwise... Now flip this ring so the center flow
is now down, the torroidal rotation reverses. Thus the result should be
obvious, a reversal in any induce rotation.
>> Rotation for ring vortices of reverse orientation, is,
>> for example, reversed. Therefore, anything following the streamlines of
>> such systems would reverse for such an inversion.
>
> I do not get your point. Note that my (2) is Maxwell's prediction
> _before_ the modification he suggested at the end of part IV to agree
> with Verdet's experiments. At that point all vortices rotate in the
> same direction wrt the direction of the magnetic field.
See above.
In Maxwell model mu (permeability) is related to the fluid pressure.
Increase mu and you decrease pressure. Flow and pressure are have an
inverse relationship, so decreasing pressure would increase flow. If
a magnetic field IS circulational flow, this would be manifested by an
increase in it strength. The reverse is, of course, also true. So,
align the centers of the vortice to be concurrent to the B field flow
and the flows would increase (the center flow in a ring vortex is the
fastest) the is seen with apparatus called eductors. Reverse the
orientation and you would oppose the externally imposed flow...
>>> [...] In part II and III Maxwell's idler wheels became the core of
>>> his explanation of electricity. Electrical currents are flows of
>>> these particles. Electrical tension is modeled by the pressure of
>>> the gas made of these idler wheels. Induction is explained by the
>>> effect of a differential rotation rates of adjoining vortices on
>>> the motion of the idler wheels. These are new roles that were not
>>> foreseeable by readers in part I.
>>
>> There were no 'actual' idler wheels in Maxwell's model. I'm very sorry
>> that you cannot recognize an illustrative analogy, but at some point
>> (which has come) it become ridiculous to continue to argue such an
>> obvious point.
>
> Sigh. In this thread I do not care for the name of the particles
> between the vortices. I have not criticized Maxwell's model because his
> idler wheels are an unrealistic mechanistic model here. This was a
> previous discussion which is now over. Here I am accepting all his
> hypotheses. Idler wheels can be whatever you want, as long as they have
> the properties assigned to them by Maxwell in his model -- I have
> reminded some of them above. I can call them electrical particles or
> interstitial particles if you prefer. In this thread I just wanted to
> show that Maxwell's model is not compatible with the magneto-optic
> effect. It would be pointless to discuss how realistic is his theory if
> it is refuted experimentally, wouldn't it ?
You have not shown this...
>>>> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute
>>>> 'olive oil' for Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same
>>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> If and only if
>>>
>>> - olive oil is made of spherical particles;
>>> - there is only one layer of these particles between vortices;
>>
>> What's wrong with three particles, or five, or seven, ...etc. In fact, any
>> odd number alignment will do.
>
> For your idea to work one must have a row of particles in contact with
> each others, the two at both ends being in contact with adjoining
> vortices. That's obviously not a stable configuration, especially when
> the particles will translate. So in fact the particles will not stay
> permanently in contact with the vortices and they will bounce between
> them actually. But that's precisely to avoid such kind of situations
> that Maxwell introduced hexagonal vortices, so that vortices and
> electrical particles pack perfectly.
It wasn't an idea 'to work' it was to show that you insistence on a single
idler was ill founded.
>> One 'could' construct a mechanical analog to Maxwell's model using segmented
>> rollers and such an oil.
>
> Sorry I do understand what you mean by "segmented roller".
Consider the following (top down) illustration
--
/ \
| |
\ /
--
Let each segment [the three (--) is to be considered one segment] represent a
cylinderical roller. The spaces between them the appropriate mechanism to
make them revolve. Immerse many of these assemblies in olive oil, voila, we
have a mechanical representation of Maxwell's model.
>>> - particles roll without sliding between vortices;
>>> - they are never in contact with each others;
>>> etc ...
>>>
>>> Otherwise you are not discussing Maxwell's model but your reworking of
>>> it. But then I am entitled to ask you to write it down with the same
>>> precision Maxwell used.
>>
>> Where is the deviation Luc?
>
>??????
Touche' I don't even know what I was thinking here???
Paul Stowe
greyw...@my-deja.com
> > You have claimed the only way that Maxwell's model can get a zero
> > "average angular speed of the vortices" for empty space is for each
> > set of vortices to be counter-rotating with each other. You have
> > incorrectly attempted to require the universe to be a single
> > "molecule" of Maxwell's medium.
>
> In fact, independently from idler wheels, it is impossible to have a
> zero average angular speed in a region where a magnetic field is set
> up. Yet another argument against Maxwell's model as you will see ...
Not true. You again snipped the quoted from Maxwell's model showing
that you are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) Maxwell's model.
>
> > Maxwell did not postulate or require that all the vortices in the
> > universe (or even in macroscopic bodies) be lined up in the same
> > preferred direction in order for his "rolling contact" to be
> > maintained. Maxwell postulated that his medium was made up of vast
> > numbers of "molecules" or "elements" that were oriented in random
> > directions. Each "molecule" contained an aligned set of vortices.
> > But any macroscopice measurement would enclose vast numbers of
> > "molecules" of medium that would be randomly oriented
>
> I agree but ....
>
> > -- until a magnetic or electric field was impressed from outside.
>
> ... **this is precisely the situation for the magneto-optic effect**.
A
> strong _uniform_ magnetic field is established -- and light rays are
> sent parallel to the magnetic lines. In Maxwell's model _all_ vortices
> have then their axes in the direction of the magnetic field and all of
> them rotate in the same direction, because of the uniformity of the
> field.
Absolutely not required for magneto-optic effect. Unless and until
you reach the maximum theoretical value for a magnetic field in the
medium. You have again snipped out the definitions, taken from the very
beginning of Maxwells paper, describing the situation. A magnetic field
does NOT require all vortices to be all lined up identically. They
could NOT be, because the lines would never loop back.
And since you've snipped out the answers (before claiming they don't
exist) I feel no need to address the rest of the rhetoric.
> A final note. What is funny is that even if a zero angular velocity
was
> possible your argument would still be highly suspect. Indeed if the
> average angular velocity were zero because of the random distribution
> of that velocity between the molecules of the medium, one would expect
> some statistical fluctuation about that mean value. This should create
> weak temporary non zero magneto-optic effect in vacuum. You must then
> explain why this has never been observed. Ever.
Now that bit of sophistry is amazing. How often to we measure magnetic
fields on scales of 10-15 m? Only in elemental particles.
>
{snip}
> You, Paul Stowe and Dennis McCarthy keep referring to superfluid to
> support your views. That's utterly ridiculous since there is no way to
> model them without quantum mechanics.
So you have repeatedly and unfoundedly claimed.
> No classical model can predict all aspects of superfluids.
Nor can any theory anywhere model "all aspects" of a given real system.
The question is, show me how Maxwell's model is not a superfluid model.
Not that it doesn't predict some quantummechanical aspect of Helium 3 or
some transition temperature that depends on some specific and
ill-defined and unmeasured paramter.
> You can not explain why the heat capacity
> changes abruptly its slope below the critical temperature.
Luc, those are not properties of a superfluid. Those are transitions TO
a superfluid FROM an non-superfluid state. Once the superfluid is
established, how does it not conform to Maxwells model in the properties
under discussion. Second sound.
> You can not explain the difference between Helium 3 and 4.
> You can not explain why
> electrons have to form pairs to make a superfluid (superconductivity).
Superfluids are not superconductivity. But we don't observe pairs of
electrons in superconductors. We MODEL cooper pairs in a
superconductor.
> You can not explain the quantization of vortices.
A Hemholtz vortex sponge is quantized. Done in the 1840's.
> And so on.
ad nauseum
Let's start with a simple question.
What is the difference between a superfluid and a perfect fluid?
Luc Bourhis
> Luc Bourhis wrote:
>
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>> Luc Bourhis wrote:
>>>
>>>> (1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the
>>>> same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in
>>>> diamagnetic substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field).
>>>
>>> Now Luc, if the above were to be literally interpreted as you claim,
>>> we would have one and the same value for the paramagnetic state, the
>>> vacuum state, and the paramagnetic state. In other words, there would
>>> be NO para or di magnetic states. I've re-read this first section
>>> and can find no reference to where Maxwell makes such a claim...
>>
>> Paramagnetic, vacuum and diamagnetic substances are differentiated by a
>> quantity related to the density of the fluid, the magnetic inductive
>> capacity mu:
>> mu < 1 : diamagnetic
>> mu = 1 : vacuum
>> mu > 1 : paramagnetic
>> Maxwell explained that in a short comment on p. 174 of part I, just
>> after the equation (21). Then he repeated in part IV that mu is smaller
>> in diamagnetic than in vacuum, in the citation I have already given in
>> this thread.
>
> OK, but that was NOT the issue.
Why did you ask the question I answered then ? The truth is that you
thought you found an argument against me when stating that if vortices
rotate always in the same direction there would be no difference
between diamagnetic, vacuum and paramagnetic. Now that I have countered
you, that issue becomes suddenly irrelevant. How easy !!
> The issue was your statement that ALL of those zillions of vortices
> MUST line up in the requisite manner for the Para, neutral, and Di
> magnetic condition.
That all vortices rotates in the same direction with respect to an
oriented magnetic line is clearly stated by Maxwell himself in part I,
on p. 169 near the figures:
<< Let the parallel lines from left to right in fig. 1 represent a
field of magnetic force such as that of the Earth, s n being the
direction for South to North. The vortices, according to our
hypothesis, will be in the direction shown by the arrows in fig. 3,
that is, in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force, and revolving
in the direction of the hands of a watch when observed from s looking
towards n.
-------------------->
-------------------->
s n
-------------------->
-------------------->
Fig 1 (I have kept only what is relevant for the above paragraphs, i.e.
the <<parallel lines>>, so as to save my time because to make sketch in
ascii is a nightmare)
<---------<<<
/========\
// \\
// \\
// \\
// \\
|| ||
|| ||
s || || n
>>>>>===========||==============================>>>
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
\\ //
\\ //
\\ //
\\ //
\========/
>>>---------->
Fig 3 (tentative of rendering in ascii of)>>
So Maxwell wrote _the vortices_, not some vortices or the majority of
vortices, just the vortices which in english means that _any vortex_
has this property.
> You seem to be INSISTING on a all or nothing situation. If ALL
> vortice aligned for a paramagnetic state we'd have mu (max) if ALL
> vortices aligned for a diamagnetic state we'd have mu (min) etc.
Why mu (min) ? Anyway even if I forget completely what I have just
cited, one has at least the following which is enough to rule out
Maxwell's model. Because of the idler wheels all vortices inside what
Maxwell called a molecule of Ether _must_ rotate in the same direction.
Then even if this direction is different in different molecules -- I
can not find any indication of such a property in Maxwell paper, can
you ? -- the existence of a non zero magnetic field implies a non zero
angular momentum, i.e. that more vortices rotates in one direction than
in the other one. But then Maxwell wrote explicitly that this non zero
angular momentum would induce a non zero magneto-optic effect, cf the
citation I gave in this thread. Therefore Maxwell's model can not
predict a zero magneto-optic in vacuum.
> But that is not, nor never was, what Maxwell was advocating.
Apart from the fact that you constantly fails to support your opinion
with citations from Maxwell's paper, that would not salvage Maxwell's
model.
> torroidal. [...]
Ring vortices ???? Maxwell considered simple vortices and not ring
vortices at all. So now Paul Stowe has gone in the mode "better
rewriting Maxwell's paper than admitting I can be wrong". Maxwell's own
word again, in part I on p. 166:
<< In a circular vortex, revolving with uniform angular velocity, ...>>
There he introduced one and only one velocity and he will not introduce
a new one later, <<the linear velocity at the circumference of the
vortex>>. From the law p1 = p0 + 1/2 rho v^2 relating the pressure p0
at the center and the pressure p1 at the circumference of a vortex it
is easy to see that v is indeed the speed of a point of the
circumference of a <<circular vortex, revolving with uniform angular
velocity>>. Where are your poloidal and toroidal motion in Maxwell's
presentation of his vortices ?
So now we can see a pattern here. Paul Stowe called my point #2 above
an interpretation of Maxwell's work. After I backed up my statements
with Maxwell's citations Paul Stowe reinterpreted Maxwell's paper in
order to attempt to try to eventually contradict me. I let the readers,
if there are any others than me and Paul still following that debate,
judge who is accurately describing Maxwell's work.
>> I have already cited the relevant paragraph for God sake ! Here it is
>> again
>> << On our theory, the direction of the rotation of the plane of
>> polarization depends on that of the mean moment of momenta, or
>> angular momentum, of the molecular vortices; and since M. Verdet
>> has discovered that [para]magnetic substances have an effect on
>> light opposite to that of diamagnetic substances, it follows that
>> the molecular rotation must be opposite in the two classes of
>> substances. We can no longer, therefore, consider diamagnetic
>> bodies as being those whose coefficient of magnetic induction is
>> less than that of space empty of gross matter. We must admit the
>> diamagnetic state to be the opposite of the paramagnetic; and that
>> the vortices, or at least the influential majority of them, in
>> diamagnetic substances, revolve in the direction in which positive
>> electricity revolves in the magnetizing bobbin, while in
>> paramagnetic substances they revolve in the opposite direction >>
>>
>> Note the "We can no longer" and the "We must admit". As reminded above
>> that "diamagnetic bodies [are] those whose coefficient of magnetic
>> induction is less than that of space empty of gross matter" was one of
>> Maxwell's conclusion in part I.
>
> In Maxwell model mu (permeability) is related to the fluid pressure.
> Increase mu and you decrease pressure.
To be precise the difference between the pressure p2 parallel to the
axis of vortices and the pressure p1 in any perpendicular direction is
given by eq. (1) of part I p. 166
p1 - p2 = 1/(4pi) mu v^2.
> Flow and pressure are have an inverse relationship, so decreasing
> pressure would increase flow [...]
What do you mean by flow ? And which pressure ? p1 or p2 ? Why don't
you stop coming with whatever arguments you can think of and read
carefully Maxwell's paper instead ? The rest of your comment is
necessarily irrelevant until you have clarified these points.
>>>>> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute
>>>>> 'olive oil' for Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> If and only if
>>>>
>>>> - olive oil is made of spherical particles;
>>>> - there is only one layer of these particles between vortices;
>>>
>>> What's wrong with three particles, or five, or seven, ...etc. In
>>> fact, any odd number alignment will do.
>>
>> For your idea to work one must have a row of particles in contact with
>> each others, the two at both ends being in contact with adjoining
>> vortices. That's obviously not a stable configuration, especially when
>> the particles will translate. So in fact the particles will not stay
>> permanently in contact with the vortices and they will bounce between
>> them actually. But that's precisely to avoid such kind of situations
>> that Maxwell introduced hexagonal vortices, so that vortices and
>> electrical particles pack perfectly.
>
> It wasn't an idea 'to work' it was to show that you insistence on a single
> idler was ill founded.
If this idea can not work, a single layer of idler is the only
remaining solution and it is then very well founded. Your comment is
therefore completely illogical.
>>> One 'could' construct a mechanical analog to Maxwell's model using
>>> segmented rollers and such an oil.
>>
>> Sorry I do understand what you mean by "segmented roller".
>
> Consider the following (top down) illustration
>
> --
> / \
> | |
> \ /
> --
>
> Let each segment [the three (--) is to be considered one segment]
> represent a cylinderical roller. The spaces between them the
> appropriate mechanism to make them revolve. Immerse many of these
> assemblies in olive oil, voila, we have a mechanical representation
> of Maxwell's model.
How do you manage to guaranty that adjoining vortices will revolve in
the same direction ?
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
>>> You have claimed the only way that Maxwell's model can get a zero
>>> "average angular speed of the vortices" for empty space is for each
>>> set of vortices to be counter-rotating with each other. You have
>>> incorrectly attempted to require the universe to be a single
>>> "molecule" of Maxwell's medium.
>>
>> In fact, independently from idler wheels, it is impossible to have a
>> zero average angular speed in a region where a magnetic field is set
>> up. Yet another argument against Maxwell's model as you will see ...
>
> Not true. You again snipped the quoted from Maxwell's model showing
> that you are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) Maxwell's model.
The citation of yours relevant for my above discussion was
<< We shall suppose at present that all the vortices in any one part of
the field are revolving in the same direction about axes nearly
parallel, but that in passing from one part of the field to another,
the direction of the axes, the velocity of rotation, and the density of
the substance of the vortices are subject to change.>>
from part I on p. 165
I do not see how it can contradict what I have written, since Maxwell
did not make any connection between vortices and magnetic fields there.
>>> Maxwell did not postulate or require that all the vortices in the
>>> universe (or even in macroscopic bodies) be lined up in the same
>>> preferred direction in order for his "rolling contact" to be
>>> maintained. Maxwell postulated that his medium was made up of vast
>>> numbers of "molecules" or "elements" that were oriented in random
>>> directions. Each "molecule" contained an aligned set of vortices.
>>> But any macroscopice measurement would enclose vast numbers of
>>> "molecules" of medium that would be randomly oriented
>>
>> I agree but ....
>>
>>> -- until a magnetic or electric field was impressed from outside.
>>
>> ... **this is precisely the situation for the magneto-optic
>> effect**. A strong _uniform_ magnetic field is established -- and
>> light rays are sent parallel to the magnetic lines. In Maxwell's
>> model _all_ vortices have then their axes in the direction of the
>> magnetic field and all of them rotate in the same direction,
>> because of the uniformity of the field.
>
> Absolutely not required for magneto-optic effect. Unless and until
> you reach the maximum theoretical value for a magnetic field in the
> medium. You have again snipped out the definitions, taken from the very
> beginning of Maxwells paper, describing the situation.
Where do you see, in your citation I have just reminded above, that
Maxwell contradict what I have written ? Remember that when I speak
about the direction of rotation of vortices it is with respect to the
orientation given by magnetic lines going through their center. But why
should we spend time interpreting vague introductory comments when
Maxwell gave an crystal clear description of the relation between his
vortices and magnetic lines ?
In part I, on p. 169 near the figures:
-------------------->
-------------------->
s n
-------------------->
-------------------->
What I have just cited support completely what I have been writing for
ages in this thread. Indeed Maxwell wrote _the vortices_, not some
vortices or the majority of vortices, just the vortices which in
english means that _any vortex_ has this property. But I know you can
even try to argue about grammar for you have already done that in a
discussion we had about a comment written by Lorentz. Feel free to make
a fool of yourself if you want.
If you want to contradict me you'd better to read very seriously
Maxwell's paper because now I have it on my desk.
> A magnetic field does NOT require all vortices to be all lined up
> identically. They could NOT be, because the lines would never loop
> back.
Completely irrelevant to the question discussed here. In the region
where a magneto-optic is observed the magnetic field is _uniform_. The
magnetic lines and therefore the axes of vortices are therefore
parallel with each others. That it is not true outside of that region
in order for the lines to loop back is not what matters at all.
> And since you've snipped out the answers (before claiming they don't
> exist) I feel no need to address the rest of the rhetoric.
And now that I have not only commented your citation but demolish your
interpretation of them ?
>> A final note. What is funny is that even if a zero angular velocity
>> was possible your argument would still be highly suspect. Indeed if
>> the average angular velocity were zero because of the random
>> distribution of that velocity between the molecules of the medium,
>> one would expect some statistical fluctuation about that mean
>> value. This should create weak temporary non zero magneto-optic
>> effect in vacuum. You must then explain why this has never been
>> observed. Ever.
>
> Now that bit of sophistry is amazing. How often to we measure magnetic
> fields on scales of 10-15 m? Only in elemental particles.
You did not understand my comment at all. Let's try again. Let's
consider a large number N of volume of Ether empty of gross matter,
with the same size and in which the same magnetic field has been
established. If one looks at the total momentum of vortices in each
volume, one finds N different values. This statistical distribution has
a mean value and a variance. Even if the mean value is zero there are
some of these N systems with a non zero total momentum. For these ones
a non zero magneto-optic effect would appear in vacuum according to
Maxwell's model. Since this has never ever been observed it is
necessary that these cases are extremely improbable, i.e. that the
variance of the distribution of momenta is very close to zero. My
question was: why is it _always_ so ?
>> You, Paul Stowe and Dennis McCarthy keep referring to superfluid to
>> support your views. That's utterly ridiculous since there is no way to
>> model them without quantum mechanics.
>
> So you have repeatedly and unfoundedly claimed.
Could you just read one more sentence before commenting my general
introductions ?
>> No classical model can predict all aspects of superfluids.
>
> Nor can any theory anywhere model "all aspects" of a given real system.
What is a real system ? Neither an elementary particle, nor an atom,
nor even a molecule for the Standard Model can predict every observable
quantities for any atom or any molecule and any cross-section involving
high-energy particles.
> The question is, show me how Maxwell's model is not a superfluid model.
What is your definition of a superfluid model ?
> Not that it doesn't predict some quantum mechanical aspect of Helium 3 or
> some transition temperature that depends on some specific and
> ill-defined and unmeasured paramter.
As usual everything that contradicts your prejudices is ill-defined or
unmeasured. Since I do not even know what you are talking about how do
you expect me to answer that ?
>> You can not explain why the heat capacity
>> changes abruptly its slope below the critical temperature.
>
> Luc, those are not properties of a superfluid. Those are
> transitions TO a superfluid FROM an non-superfluid state. Once the
> superfluid is established, how does it not conform to Maxwells model
> in the properties under discussion.
Are you kidding ? Real superfluid are in fact always a mixture of the
superfluid and the normal phase. The understanding of this phase
transition is therefore fundamental in any study of superfluidity.
Moreover that's one of the most unusual property of this state of
matter. Therefore if your model can not explain that you have basically
nothing useful.
> Second sound.
Could you stop making cryptic comment like that ? I know what is the
so-called second sound in superfluid. Is it what you meant ?
>> You can not explain the difference between Helium 3 and 4.
I note that your only answer to that question was an aggressive comment
not supported by any fact.
>> You can not explain why electrons have to form pairs to make a
>> superfluid (superconductivity).
>
> Superfluids are not superconductivity.
Electrons form a superfluid in a superconductor.
> But we don't observe pairs of electrons in superconductors. We
> MODEL cooper pairs in a superconductor.
What matters is of course that this model is quantitatively efficient
whereas you do not even have a qualitative one based on Maxwell's
ideas.
>> You can not explain the quantization of vortices.
>
> A Hemholtz vortex sponge is quantized. Done in the 1840's.
Even if it is true this is very far from the quantization of vortices
and circulation in superfluid. For example Planck's constant ?
>> And so on.
>
> ad nauseum
>
> Let's start with a simple question.
>
> What is the difference between a superfluid and a perfect fluid?
- infinite thermal conductivity of the superfluid phase
- zero heat capacity of the superfluid phase
- fountain effect in real superfluid
- propagation of sound with virtually no variation of pressure (second
sound)
- quantization of vortices and circulation
and many others a specialists of these questions could come with.
--
Luc Bourhis