Scalar waves, is this a complete fabrication?

[Ulysees]

Many of you will have heard of these. Does anyone knowledgeable on conventional electromagnetics, suspect there may be some truth in it?

 

[berkeman]

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]

Why don't you transfer it into the scepticism and debunking section. Hopefully some experts from here will give it an informed assessment.

 

[berkeman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

You must have watched the NOVA program on neutrinos last night. Very good.

 

[NoTime]

So this section is for credible references?

Berkeman beat me out the gate

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]

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/publications/research_highlights_2005/docs/SF05_Dalvit_Casimir.pdf

Count Iblis, I hope you have some insights on this.

 

[Phrak]

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]

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]

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]

We can only reference published works.

How do we debunk something if we do not reference it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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 occurred 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]

Okay, but please avoid speculation or personal derivations. Something like this requires that we stick to papers publilshed in mainstream journals.

 

[Phrak]

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.

 

[Ulysees]

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.

Is Tom Bearden's theory, a personal theory? Was Einstein's theory of relativity a personal theory in 1919? Every theory starts as a personal theory in someone's head.

And if today's Einstein comes here and posts his draft theory of modified relativity, how will we debunk it, if we can't read it?

 

[Ulysees]

I should add that there wasn't a single reference in Einstein's original paper of the theory of relativity.

Peer-review? It wasn't reviewed by anyone at all.

Einstein's job: a patent clerk (had a PhD though, like so many people in this forum).

 

[Ulysees]

A lot of guys coming up with ideas and swapping lies 'cause math is hard.

I've seen that too. But this guy Tom Bearden seems extremely well-versed in vector calculus and other math. I have seen some of his equations, can't give a link to them yet.

 

[russ_watters]

Bearden is the crackpot of crackpots. This is pure bunk.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is Tom Bearden's theory, a personal theory? Was Einstein's theory of relativity a personal theory in 1919? Every theory starts as a personal theory in someone's head.

And if today's Einstein comes here and posts his draft theory of modified relativity, how will we debunk it, if we can't read it?

Einstein was published in mainstream journals.

Good enough for me: The subject is now banned.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note to readers: When it comes to material that some claim should be published, or that would be published if not for bias, our position is that we do not buy into conspiracy theories, and that we allow the journals to do the debunking for us. If someone can't get published in an appropriate journal, there is no need to justify that here.