Scalar waves, is this a complete fabrication?

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.

 

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

 

Berkeman beat me out the gate

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.

 

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.

 

We can only reference published works.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Einstein was published in mainstream journals.

Good enough for me: The subject is now banned.

 

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.