Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory

[e-traveller]

It is difficult to find any mention in science texts of what was known at the time a theory was formulated and became generally accepted by the scientific community.

I suspect Maxwell would not have introduced the displacement current had he known about the existence of electrons.

[Michael V]

e-traveller,

Since Maxwell is unlikely to detail his exact train of thought to us, we are left to speculate. However, several things are reasonable to assume were part of, or influential to, his preconceptions and reasoning:

- that there was a "flow" of something that represented a "current"

- light "signals" were a "wave" of something perhaps in a medium of some description

- some processes or phenomena were in some way causal, and thus separate or discrete, from other phenomena - specifically, a "current" causes a magnetic "field"

- the phenomena of a "field" as an object or process in its own right, as opposed the correct interpretation, that it is a "field of influence" issued from, emanating from, or emitted by, matter (Note: this field as a "thing" way of thinking has also led to the concept of "curved space")

The course of science over the last 200 years or so, and more so during the last hundred, might be described by way of Newton's famous quote: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Indeed, this has become a necessary precondition to acceptance. Theoretical advances have to be justified by reference to earlier accepted work. The possibility that "the giants" were looking in completely the wrong direction is ignored without thought or question. Anyone who finds questionable: black holes, big bangs, inflation fields, dark matter and dark energy, should be equally appalled by the utter nonsense of "mutually inducing fields".

Each new advancement can only be appraised and included by a complete reworking of theory from first principles. Incorporating new discoveries via some "epicyclic" manner simply serves to give continued authority to potentially ignorant speculation made previously, and at the same time, dilutes the usefulness and importance of genuine discovery, such as the existence of electrons and protons.

We might try to find justification in the difficulties in rewriting text books and realigning educational materials as new discovery is made. Certainly, continuity is easier and more comforting. More likely, the problem resides in maintaining the ivory towers of the scientific and educational establishment. Nobody has more to lose, and is less able or likely to change their opinion about their chosen field of study, than those that have invested their lives and lively-hoods based touting theories founded on ignorance and shown to be devoid of logic.


Michael V

[e-traveller]

Michael V.

Nobody has more to lose, and is less able or likely to change their opinion about their chosen field of study, than those that have invested their lives and lively-hoods based touting theories founded on ignorance and shown to be devoid of logic.

Your quoted statement is apropos. I had submitted a paper to the 2012 FQXi essay contest titled, "Questioning the Foundations - Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" I began my essay by citing the resistance of the scientific authority structure in recognizing Daniel Schechtman's discovery of quasi-crystals. Schechtman's discovery upset 100 years of settled science.

My essay was titled, "House of cards built one meter at a time", which challenged the assumption that the meter is truly a scientific unit of measure. The abstract is quoted below:

A physical law assumption is based upon a knowledge set extracted using observation and measurement techniques available at the time the assumption was made. An assumption can stifle scientific inquiry if it is allowed to become a protected paradigm, and thus, unchallengeable. Units of measure are a core element of physical law inquiry and an erroneous assumption used in selecting the base units can hinder the inquiry process significantly.

I used an IEEE publication as the basis for my challenge, and the postprint can be downloaded from the URL noted in my profile.

Your quote

Each new advancement can only be appraised and included by a complete reworking of theory from first principles.

It is very apparent that the discovery of the electron in 1897 should have required a basic reexamination of all the conclusions and mathematics associated with electromagnetism and electricity in general, instead of applying patches to the various theories. Then, the discovery that the electron has spin, a magnetic moment, should have cleared the desks again. Electromagnetic propagation was still somewhat provincial until it was discovered in the 1930s that EM emissions other than light were coming from the cosmos. Soon after, professional radio astronomy revealed that there was a massive EM energy exchanges across the EM frequency spectrum taking place throughout the universe. The radio astronomers discoveries made it quite apparent that we exist in an Electric Universe, but actually admitting this remains off the table to the scientific authority structure.

[Goldminer]

Regarding this post by Goldminer:

Quoting Pengkuan, Re: Why EM wave equation does not conform to relativity? February 9, 2013, 2:29 AM:

Dear readers and experimenters,

I have a bad news: I have carried out the Lorentz perpendicular action experiment, blogspothttp://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2012/12/lorentz-perpendicular-action-experiment.html
academiahttp://www.academia.edu/2237784/Lorentz_perpen ... experiment
. It seems that the magnetic force on the test coil in perpendicular position has apparently the same magnitude than in parallel position. This shows that there is an error in my calculation or in my theory. I think of the experimenters who may be doing this experiment and decide to announce immediately this news to inform them.

Firstly, I want to say sorry to them who have given me their trust. I also want to thanks the readers who have given their time to consider my theory. I preferred to announce this news by my self rather than by someone else who would carry it out and find negative result. I believe that honesty is essential in sciences.

Im searching actively what is the error and will be back because, although this experiment failed, my paradoxes about the Lorentz force law still hold and this force cannot generate freely energy.

Thanks to you all.

PengKuan

9 February 2013

PengKuan's retraction is linked here This fellow admits the fact when his theory is falsified. Too bad science, in general, doesn't follow the example!

[davidAuthor]

I would like to suggest upgrading Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory. There are two different equations here. One resulting in the movement of charged particles, the other due to the particle nature of photons of energy. The approach to separating these effects has to do with the mechanism of what actually being defined. This is the problem of understanding physics.
I took an approach of adding a concept called "Subspace" where dark matter singularity space contains the energy (ether) of light and matter. And only where these spaces touch each other is where our universe exists see http://subspacescience.weebly.com . With this model the electromagnetic fields from charge has more to do with rotating currents of spinning subspaces. The magnetic field of a charge particle is simply a geometric property of the subspaces. While for the particle nature two subspace particles are reacting with each other to generate a double helix of light.