Two ways of constructing electromagnetism, which is correct?

[JustaPhysicsStudent]

TL;DR

The prediction of a force between perpendicular wires distinguishes two very different kinds of electromagnetism.

I think everyone would agree that linear current is simpler than circular current. So please tell me honestly, which one do you think is more fundamental? Considering that a loop is made up of closed lines, I think the answer is obvious.

What is painful is, in mainstream electromagnetism, the magnetic field generated by a circular current is considered a fundamental phenomenon, and the so-called "magnetic field" always implies that at least one of the interacting parties is a circular current.

Now you might be tempted to say that even if we construct electromagnetism with linear current as the basic phenomenon, what we end up with is not fundamentally different from what we use now.

But that is simply not true.

Consider this situation, two straight wires carrying current are perpendicular to each other.

Don't tell me that any current formation requires a closed circuit. As long as the rest of the two circuits are far enough apart, the effect of the rest of the circuits can be ignored.

Mainstream theory predicts that if I1 is fixed,I2 will rotate counterclockwise around the intersection point. However, this can easily lead to many paradoxes. Here is one.

With something like a track providing the centripetal force, there is nothing in mainstream electromagnetism that can prevent BC from circling around A and accelerating forever. Therefore, it violates another mainstream belief: the law of conservation of energy.

Here are three questions I propose.

1. Has the force between perpendicular wires been measured experimentally in history?
2. If not, why does everyone take the predictions of the mainstream theory as fact?
3. How do you resolve my paradox?

 

[Dale]

TL;DR Summary: The prediction of a force between perpendicular wires distinguishes two very different kinds of electromagnetism.

I think everyone would agree that linear current is simpler than circular current. So please tell me honestly, which one do you think is more fundamental?

Neither. What is fundamental is Maxwell’s equations. The behavior of both loops and lines are derived from that. As is Poynting’s theorem for the conservation of energy.

Re: your drawing. There is no torque on either loop. The forces are purely radial. So I am not sure what paradox you think is represented there.

 

[Meir Achuz]

Try to make a sensible second picture, labeling things. What are B and C?

 

[JustaPhysicsStudent]

My drawing is a top view. The two concentric circles are two wires that provide the "magnetic field". The arrows represent the direction of the current. A is the center of the concentric circles. BC is part of a circuit that is perpendicular to the plane of the drawing.

Try to make a sensible second picture, labeling things. What are B and C?

 

[JustaPhysicsStudent]

Neither. What is fundamental is Maxwell’s equations. The behavior of both loops and lines are derived from that. As is Poynting’s theorem for the conservation of energy.

Re: your drawing. There is no torque on either loop. The forces are purely radial. So I am not sure what paradox you think is represented there.

Yes, I said it clearly, BC will be circling around A and accelerating forever.

 

[Dale]

Yes, I said it clearly

No. You really didn’t or you wouldn’t have had two of two people confused.

BC is part of a circuit that is perpendicular to the plane of the drawing

That wasn’t clear.

Please show your work on this. If you are getting that energy is not conserved then you are making a mistake.

Poynting’s theorem follows from Maxwell’s equations. So if you are getting non-conservation of energy in your analysis then there are only two possibilities:

1) your analysis violates Maxwell’s equations
2) you are miscalculating the energy

Without the details of your analysis, it is impossible to tell which of those two possibilities it is.

 

[JustaPhysicsStudent]

BC has a tendency to accelerate (increase kinetic energy) continuously. However, this process does not consume potential energy, nor does it generate induced potential.

 

[Dale]

So you claim, without having shown any work.

Again, please show your work on this. Poynting’s theorem follows from Maxwell’s equations. So if you are getting non-conservation of energy in your analysis then there are only two possibilities:

1) your analysis violates Maxwell’s equations
2) you are miscalculating the energy

Without the details of your analysis, it is impossible to tell which of those two possibilities it is. (Although I would guess that it is 1)