Maxwells theory of electro-magnetic radiation:

  • Thread starter McQueen
  • Start date
  • #26
256
0
As EE working for more than 20 years in a real time control center with state estimator included, a complex mathematical algorithm, based both, on the laws of electromagnetism and statistic, it is quite remarkable how theory and observation fit to each other, day by day, to determine the state of a power system, the most complex network ever built by man on which all our economy and life rest, I mean, it is quite difficult for me to think it is wrong.
Thank you Epsilon Pi , the observed and theoretical predictions of electricty do work very well , largely due to the fact that most of those Laws were formulated by Faraday , who was a great observer of physical phenomenon. It's only when one goes deeper into the theory that the cracks begin to appear. You might like to check out the new theory of "electromagnetism " which I have introduced , which actually explains the propagation of light in terms of "Lines of force."
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg7.html
 
  • #27
193
0
For sure I will take a good look at your work, thank you!
I do not deny we owe too much to Faraday, the one that for the first time understood the importance of the magnetic field, with the introduction of its lines of force, so that we can say today that a non conservative field such as the magnetic field is characterized because its lines of force go out and in from a center, as it were, the magnetic center, which is quite different from those conservative fields such as the electric and gravitational field that need two external centers, a positive charge and a negative charge, or a gravitational center and a satellite center. But is not all our theoretical intents in modern physics based on the way the latter fields behave, or else on its symmetric behavior? Is not assymmetry a non invited guess in modern physics? Was not the broken of parity in nuclear interactions a proof of this? Is not this, the reason why we have so many patches in it and so we lost the kiss technique?
It is worth noticing that Maxwell equations remain invariant with the equation of special relativity, i.e., with the Lorentz transformation group, so they stand on their own in spite of changes.
Regards
EP

McQueen said:
As EE working for more than 20 years in a real time control center with state estimator included, a complex mathematical algorithm, based both, on the laws of electromagnetism and statistic, it is quite remarkable how theory and observation fit to each other, day by day, to determine the state of a power system, the most complex network ever built by man on which all our economy and life rest, I mean, it is quite difficult for me to think it is wrong.
Thank you Epsilon Pi , the observed and theoretical predictions of electricty do work very well , largely due to the fact that most of those Laws were formulated by Faraday , who was a great observer of physical phenomenon. It's only when one goes deeper into the theory that the cracks begin to appear. You might like to check out the new theory of "electromagnetism " which I have introduced , which actually explains the propagation of light in terms of "Lines of force."
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg7.html
 
  • #28
193
0
If I am right you take photons as the fundamental particles of the universe, right?
According to what we have, photons obey sort of Pauli antiexclusion principle, as they tend to behave such as a conservative field(electric and gravitational): they tend to crowd together; this is not the case with electrons, which obey the Pauli exclusion principle: no two particles of the same kind can occupy the same state at the same time: it seems that their inherent magnetic field(a non conservative field), make it impossible for them to crowd together.
My point is how do you conciliate this duality in your most elaborate proposal?
Regards
EP
McQueen said:
You might like to check out the new theory of "electromagnetism " which I have introduced , which actually explains the propagation of light in terms of "Lines of force."
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg7.html
 
  • #29
matter is bound condensed gravitation, space is unbound monopole gravitational wave. Time is the process!
 
  • #30
256
0
According to what we have, photons obey sort of Pauli antiexclusion principle, as they tend to behave such as a conservative field(electric and gravitational): they tend to crowd together; this is not the case with electrons, which obey the Pauli exclusion principle: no two particles of the same kind can occupy the same state at the same time: it seems that their inherent magnetic field(a non conservative field), make it impossible for them to crowd together.
Basically what my theory states is that there are no separate electric fields or magnetic fields and that only field is an electromagnetic field which is due to the structure of the photon. Since the electron is a charged particle it follows that what the electron might be emitting is electrical energy, this energy is emitted in short bursts creating bands of electrical energy separated by a di-electric , the bands of energy first emitted are more negatively charged than later subsequent bands of energy , this results in the formation of a di-pole and of a re-distribution of the energy of the photon in a localised manner giving rise to an electromagnetic field. Thus the electromagnetic field and the lines of force are made up of photons , without the photons there would be no electromagnetic field.
With regard to your question about bosons and fermions I can only say that the answer is probably simpler than it looks. For instance if you take the case of the He3 and He4 isotopes of Helium , one of which gives rise to a bose einstein condensate while the other does not , it is easy to see that the stable isotope has equal number of nucleons , the isotope which forms the condesate has unequal number of nucleons so that the chances of interaction are greater.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
256
0
matter is bound condensed gravitation, space is unbound monopole gravitational wave. Time is the process
This is close to what Einstein states in GR.
 
  • #32
163
0
The Faraday/Maxwell Equations are uniquely Classic Physics

McQueen said:
Maxwells theory of electromagnetic radiation has been around for the past two hundred odd years. Although it is probably one of the most elegant and aesthetic theories ever to be introduced in the study of Physics , today it is an anachronistic and misleading theory , based for the most part on faulty logic and observation. It accurately reflects the age in which it was conceived and is reminiscent of an eighteenth century steam engine more than anything else , Maxwell envisions electromagnetic radiation as huffing and puffing its way across the vast reaches of space. The whole conception of electric and magnetic fields alternatively exchanging energy and thereby sustaining themselves is at heart erroneous for the simple reason that there are no electric and magnetic fields per se , there are only electromagnetic fields. To speak of an electric field is wrong , there are no electric fields The field in and around a charged capacitor is frequently referred to as an electric field , in fact if a definition of an electric field exists it might be said to be represented by the field associated with a charged capacitor , yet this field is definitely not an electric field it is an electromagnetic field . How then can Maxwell’s theory possibly make sense or continue to possess any validity. Even particle physicists speak blandly of results obtained under the influence of a strong magnetic field when what they actually mean is a strong electromagnetic field. The premise that electric and magnetic fields have an independent existence has fragmented the whole of physics to such an extent that it is difficult to envision ever replacing these concepts even if our whole understanding of physical phenomenon depends on such changes being made.

It is easy to agree with McQueen because I have come across, from my memory, an anecdote which shows that Maxwell's Equations of 140 years ago pertained uniquely to the Classic-Realm in the electormagnitic form of Alternating Current (which applies to radio transmissions and transformer applications etc.). Alternating Current has absolutely no place in the Quantum-Realm - the "loop" two-electron current in each Pauli orbital always travels rapidly and continues indefinitely as Direct Current, socalled "standing wave".

Anecdotally speaking; in 1937, car radios were designed to operate on power from a six-volt car battery, but not unlike the “plate – cathode” circuits in portable radios that contained a 90-volt battery as well as a 6-volt battery (to heat the cathodes), the 90-volt plate voltage in the car radio was furnished by a “vibrator” that reversed polarity sixty times a second in a pattern that was a pseudo-sine-wave – this was the fore-runner of true alternating current – a transformer and rectifier supplied 90-volt DC to the plate circuit. The upshot here is that with the purely classical Maxwellian treatment of electrodynamics, individual electrons do move in loops and do radiate but there is absolutely no concern for the intrinsic fact that an electron has dipolar “spin” that generates its own torque and magnetism.
It is notable that the dipolar "spin" of electrons occurs infrequently in Classical Mechanics (in van de Graff generators and capacitors) it is its orientation, whether as torque-up vs torque-down ala Feynman or as magnetic bar-magnet north pole vs South pole that satisfies the Pauli requirement in Quantum Mechanics.
It follows simply that all light is corpuscular because its photon length (and color) differs from the equal radio wave length that shows no color and is
obviously a continuous wave phenomenon. Ipse Dixit

Cheers, NEOclassic
 
Last edited:
  • #33
193
0
Does not AC mean that, that current is associated with a sinusoidal waveform; furthermore AC was accepted in that moment Steinmetz presented his paper where he showed that those differential equations that defined AC could be converted to "normal" algebraic equations.
Our main problem from the beginning, IMHO, has been to interpret things from what I call the part(charge) point of view. The same concept of spin with its two inherent polarities(or directions) is not in fact, reflecting a sort of sinusoidal wave behavior?
As a matter of fact, that historical conflict between Steinmetz and Edison, a firmly advocate of DC, was solved with that paper mentioned that showed among other things that to manage complexity properly we must not just deny it, but take it to a minimum.
My point at this moment, is not AC or DC, but that both the Schrodinger wave equation and electromagnetism, as is studied in EE, are based in complex numbers, i.e., Euler relation, that permit to rationalize duality, duality that even in EE is presented in that complex concept of power that has been used so successfully in more than 140 years(?), and on which depends all our technology today.
Regards
EP
PD: The postmodernist debunking tendency in action?


NEOclassic said:
Alternating Current (which applies to radio transmissions and transformer applications etc.). Alternating Current has absolutely no place in the Quantum-Realm - the "loop" two-electron current in each Pauli orbital always travels rapidly and continues indefinitely as Direct Current, socalled "standing wave".


It is notable that the dipolar "spin" of electrons occurs infrequently in Classical Mechanics (in van de Graff generators and capacitors) it is its orientation, whether as torque-up vs torque-down ala Feynman or as magnetic bar-magnet north pole vs South pole that satisfies the Pauli requirement in Quantum Mechanics.
Ipse Dixit

Cheers, NEOclassic
 
  • #34
193
0
Yes, the spin concept has sometimes been explained in terms of classical mechanics(torque-up vs torque-down ala Feynman), but is it not an electromagnetic certitude?
Then it is said it was Dirac with its relativistic QM the one who finally explained it clearly.(as a matter of fact Maxwell equations remain invariant with the Lorentz transformation group)
I have always wondered though if the problem with its explanation had not lied in the difficulty we have to take for granted that duality we find in it, the same reluctancy we have to accept the wave nature of reality?
Normally it is easier and it may seem simpler to explain things starting with the part, i.e., with the simple as was recommended by Descartes.
By the same token when we came across with a certitude as that one of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, where we find ourselves with two different kinds of facts:
-on the one hand with the fact that the orbital angular momentum is right when calculated in a classical way, and
- on the other hand, it is not right for the angular intrinsic momentum, as its observed value is doubled: the electron does not behave as a classical particle.
The duality of the spin expressed in that dual and complementary behavior, where we find an up and down directions, as it were, a sinusoidal behavior, or an inherent polarity of the electron, where each one of those polarities seems to contribute to obtain that double result, which would not be the case if we considered at the background sort of charge dipoles, or just an electric charge?
When we have at the background a most appropriate symbolism based on a natural wave function as Euler relation, things of this sort definitively are seen almost in a most natural and intuitive way

Just some thoughts about the wave nature of reality
Regards
EP

NEOclassic said:
The upshot here is that with the purely classical Maxwellian treatment of electrodynamics, individual electrons do move in loops and do radiate but there is absolutely no concern for the intrinsic fact that an electron has dipolar “spin” that generates its own torque and magnetism.
It is notable that the dipolar "spin" of electrons occurs infrequently in Classical Mechanics (in van de Graff generators and capacitors) it is its orientation, whether as torque-up vs torque-down ala Feynman or as magnetic bar-magnet north pole vs South pole that satisfies the Pauli requirement in Quantum Mechanics... Ipse Dixit

Cheers, NEOclassic
 
  • #35
what_are_electrons
McQueen said:
You might like to check out the new theory of "electromagnetism " which I have introduced , which actually explains the propagation of light in terms of "Lines of force."
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg7.html
When I visit the above link and take a step back in the site to http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight , I find links to "Dilip. D. James" and someone in India,

For further information contact :
D.Ramakuri
"Arden Villa",
St. Ann's Rd.
Ootacamund 643 001
Nilgiris : S. India

Is this your author alias or ...
 
  • #36
256
0
Is this your author alias or ...
In a manner of speaking , yes.
 

Related Threads on Maxwells theory of electro-magnetic radiation:

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
630
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
638
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
Top