Scalar waves, is this a complete fabrication?


by Ulysees
Tags: fabrication, scalar, waves
Ulysees
Ulysees is offline
#1
Jun4-08, 12:26 PM
P: 516
Many of you will have heard of these. Does anyone knowledgeable on conventional electromagnetics, suspect there may be some truth in it?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Lemurs match scent of a friend to sound of her voice
Repeated self-healing now possible in composite materials
'Heartbleed' fix may slow Web performance
berkeman
berkeman is online now
#2
Jun4-08, 02:31 PM
Mentor
berkeman's Avatar
P: 39,589
Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
Many of you will have heard of these. Does anyone knowledgeable on conventional electromagnetics, suspect there may be some truth in it?
Wikipedia.org labels Scalar Wave theory as pseudoscience. You need to provide some credible references (preferably in refereed professional journals), or this thread will be deleted. We do not permit crackpot theories here on the PF.
Ulysees
Ulysees is offline
#3
Jun4-08, 03:27 PM
P: 516
Why don't you transfer it into the scepticism and debunking section. Hopefully some experts from here will give it an informed assessment.

berkeman
berkeman is online now
#4
Jun4-08, 04:06 PM
Mentor
berkeman's Avatar
P: 39,589

Scalar waves, is this a complete fabrication?


Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
Why don't you transfer it into the scepticism and debunking section. Hopefully some experts from here will give it an informed assessment.
Sounds like a reasonable idea, as long as Ivan is okay with it. Moved from EE to S&D, at least for now.
NoTime
NoTime is offline
#5
Jun4-08, 04:08 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 1,572
Frankly, I'm with berkeman with this.
Barring your location of a credible reference there is nothing to discuss.
Experimental error is easy to achieve.
An actual odd result is a different matter.
Ulysees
Ulysees is offline
#6
Jun4-08, 05:02 PM
P: 516
Quote Quote by NoTime View Post
Barring your location of a credible reference there is nothing to discuss.
So this section is for credible references?

An actual odd result is a different matter.
Now you got me excited. You have observed personally an odd result in electromagnetics that does not match current physics? What was it?
berkeman
berkeman is online now
#7
Jun4-08, 05:34 PM
Mentor
berkeman's Avatar
P: 39,589
Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
So this section is for credible references?
I think his comment was posted as I was moving this thread from EE to S&D. S&D still has rules, however, so be sure to check them to see what documentation you should provide.

Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
Now you got me excited. You have observed personally an odd result in electromagnetics that does not match current physics? What was it?
Not strictly electromagnetics, but the solar neutrino issue was a puzzle for many years of experimental observations, and was only solved recently:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/missing.html



.
dlgoff
dlgoff is offline
#8
Jun4-08, 05:40 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,631
You must have watched the NOVA program on neutrinos last night. Very good.
NoTime
NoTime is offline
#9
Jun4-08, 05:55 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 1,572
Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
So this section is for credible references?
Berkeman beat me out the gate
Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
Now you got me excited. You have observed personally an odd result in electromagnetics that does not match current physics? What was it?
Not in electromagnetics, well ok, I think the self focusing of a high power laser is pretty odd.
At least I've never seen a good explanation.

There is also the sticky in this section which has quite a list.
Ulysees
Ulysees is offline
#10
Jun5-08, 03:37 AM
P: 516
Here's another such case perhaps. The dynamical Casimir effect, that is claimed to indicate fluctuations of vacuum and standing scalar waves between two mirrors, or something like that:

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/t/publicati...it_Casimir.pdf

Count Iblis, I hope you have some insights on this.
Phrak
Phrak is offline
#11
Jun10-08, 01:00 AM
P: 4,513
Using only the classical Maxwell equations on the spacetime of general relativity, I obtain a current-charge wave propagating at c, accompanied by a Coulomb wave (scalar to you folks). I was looking for charge-current density solutions that satisfied Laplace's equation. I'd have to look again to see if there were a standing wave solution in the potential that didn't transport charge or contain charge.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#12
Jun10-08, 01:07 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,492
Quote Quote by Phrak View Post
Using only the classical Maxwell equations on the spacetime of general relativity, I obtain a current-charge wave propagating at c, accompanied by a Coulomb wave (scalar to you folks). I was looking for charge-current density solutions that satisfied Laplace's equation.

Figure that out.
We can only reference published works.
Ulysees
Ulysees is offline
#13
Jun10-08, 01:53 AM
P: 516
Quote Quote by Phrak View Post
a current-charge wave propagating at c, accompanied by a Coulomb wave (scalar to you folks).
A Coulomb wave is a wave of the Coulomb field or E-field? Isn't that a vector field?

Tom Bearden's scalar waves are supposed to be longitudinal. Is your Coulomb wave so?

What about the current-charge wave, is it longitudinal?
Ulysees
Ulysees is offline
#14
Jun10-08, 01:54 AM
P: 516
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
We can only reference published works.
How do we debunk something if we do not reference it?
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#15
Jun10-08, 02:17 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,492
I was talking about the post above mine. If we have a formal reference, we can use it, but personal theories will result in the thread being locked, and penalty points will be assigned.
Phrak
Phrak is offline
#16
Jun10-08, 02:26 PM
P: 4,513
I try to imagine what physics would be like without mathematics. I think it would be like this "scalar wave" business. A lot of guys coming up with ideas and swapping lies 'cause math is hard.

In leaving out the rather vague notion that fields originate on charge and that charge is associated with massive matter, using only Maxwell's 4 equations, after 5 or so pages of rather dense calculations I come up with a non-physical result. Reading these posts, it occured to me that a standing wave may cancel the charge density and leave a propagating coulomb potenital in place.

Ivan- Nothing new is invented, nor publishable. I was simply doing a little survey of classical electromagnetism. I'm certainly not advancing a 'personal theory'.

I've read some of the wikipedia article on this scalar potential. If it's accurate there's nothing in common with this goofy notion of bubbles between magnets 'n stuff.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#17
Jun10-08, 02:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,492
Okay, but please avoid speculation or personal derivations. Something like this requires that we stick to papers publilshed in mainstream journals.
Phrak
Phrak is offline
#18
Jun10-08, 05:33 PM
P: 4,513
now it's personal derivations. can't have any of that going on. I think perhaps personal opinions are a bit of a problem, as well.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
From the scalar of curvature (Newman-Penrose formalism) to the Ricci scalar Special & General Relativity 8
Longitudinal Scalar Waves?? Beyond the Standard Model 0
Could scalar waves do this-allow me this question for physicists and meteorologists.. General Discussion 10
Gravity and Scalar Waves General Physics 0
Scalar Waves General Discussion 2