plnbz
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Halfway done. Items I don't understand or lack certainty of, are in bold ...
Faraday or Maxwell?
Do scalar waves exist or not?
Practical consequences of an extended field theory
by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl
Introduction
Maxwell's Equations accurately describe enough electromagnetic field phenomena to suggest that they represent a universal field description. But if one looks more closely, it turns out to be purely an approximation, which as a consequence leads to far reaching physical and technological consequences. We must ask ourselves:
- What is the Maxwell approximation?
- How could a new and extended approach look like?
- Of Faraday and Maxwell, which is the more general law of induction?
- Can Maxwell's Equations be derived as a special case?
- Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
On the one hand, this investigation constitutes a search for a unified physical theory, and on the hand the chances for new technologies which result from this extended field theory. As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which is rooted strictly in physics textbooks and lacks conceptual basis (Meyl prefers the phrase "exists in the absence of postulate"), scalar waves can be demonstrated to not only exist, but also result in many applications. In the Information Technology sector, they’re suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated more dimensionally.
Quote:
USER SOLAR: “modulated dimensionally: is basically saying that you can encode, or project, information into the "sea" of longitudinal energy where it will stay as a set of frequencies or phase relationships. The only way to extract the information is to correctly 'tune' to those frequency's or phase relationships with a corresponding antenna. Other than that the information will simply stay within that 'field'. So you're 'modulating' that field without interfering with other fields i.e. dimensionally, within it's own realm of phase.”
In power engineering, the spectrum stretches from the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
Quote:
STEFANR: “So in the information transmission part it is possible to send information with more modulations. In the Power transmission part it is not only possible to send power/energy but even one is able to pick up additional energy from the local field. (suppose one is able to pick up neutrinos : it's seems magical free energy but when one knows how to pick them up it's just solarpower (only neutrinos don't only come from the sun but also from sources outside our solarsystem)).”
Quote:
SOLAR: “"frequencies up to the collection of energy out or the field": is pointing to the diversity of what one could do with and within that 'homogenous field'. You could utilize it to just encode/receive information or you can extract usable enegry from it.”
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, moving through space as a scalar wave. They were introduced by Pauli as massless, and yet energy-carrying, particles necessary to fulfill the energy balance sheet for beta decay. Nothing would be more obvious than to technically use the neutrino radiation as an energy source.
Vortex and anti-vortex
In the eye of a tornado, the same calm prevails as at great distance from the tornado, for here exists both a vortex and an anti-vortex working against each other (Fig 1). The expanding vortex pushes out from the tornado's center, and is resisted by the contraction of its anti-vortex on the tornado's periphery. One vortex requires the existence of the other one, and vice versa. Leonardo da Vinci knew of both of these vortices and has described their dual manifestations [1, chapter 3.4].
In the case of flow vortices, viscosity determines the diameter of the vortex tube. If, for instance, a tornado soaks itself with water above the open ocean, then the contracting potential vortex is predominant and the energy density increases threateningly. If it however runs overland and rains out, it again becomes bigger and less dangerous.
The conditions for the bathtub vortex are similar. Here the expanding vortex consists of air, and the contracting vortex water. In flow dynamics, the relations are understood. They are easily observed and understood without further aid.
In electrical engineering, it’s different: here, field vortices remain invisible and misunderstood. Maxwell’s Theory mathematically describes the eddy currents and ignores its anti-vortex. I call the contracting anti-vortex “potential vortex” and propose that every eddy current entails the anti-vortex as a physical necessity.
Because electrical conductivity determines a vortex’s size, conductive materials generate large vortices whereas nonconductive materials can result in vortices on the scale of atoms. The structures can only be directly observed in semiconducting and resistive materials.
Vortices in the microcosm and macrocosm
The approximation which is hidden in Maxwell’s Equations thus consists of neglecting the eddy current’s anti-vortex. It is possible that this approximation is allowed, so long as it only concerns processes inside of conductive materials. If we however get to insulating materials, the Maxwell approximation will lead to considerable errors and the Equations will no longer apply.
If we take as an example lightning, and ask how the lightning channel is formed: Which mechanism is behind it, if the electrically insulating air for a short time is becoming a conductor? From the viewpoint of vortex physics, the answer is obvious: The potential vortex, which in the air is dominating, contracts very strongly, and in doing so, squeezes all the air’s charged carriers and air’s ions, which are responsible for conductivity, together into a very small space to form a current channel.
The contracting potential vortex thus exerts a pressure and with that forms the vortex tube. Besides the cylindrical structure, another structure can be expected. It is the sphere, which is the only form which can withstand a powerful pressure that acts equally from all directions of space. Think of ball lightning. Actually, the spherical structure is mostly found in microcosm to macrocosm. Let’s consider some examples and thereby search for the expanding and contracting forces (Fig. 2).
[see paper table]
• In quantum physics, one imagines the elementary particles to be consisting of quarks. Regardless of which physical reality is attributed to this model, on thing remains puzzling: Either the quarks will run apart, or three globules which are violently and permanently hitting each other must stay together. For this reason, glue particles were postulated – the so-called gluons. This takes care of the reaction force, but in fact the reaction force is nothing but a postulate.
• In nuclear physics, it concerns the force which holds together the atomic nucleus. It’s composed of many nucleons which give it a well-known stability. Although, once again, we have particles which normally repel one another close together. Between the theoretical model and practical reality, there is an enormous gap which should be overcome by introduction of a new reaction force. But, the nuclear force – called strong interaction – is once again nothing but a postulate.
• In atomic physics, the electric force of attraction between the positive nuclear charge and the negatively charged enveloping electrons counteracts the centrifugal force. In this case, the anti-vortex leads to the atomic hull’s structure, which obey the Schrodeinger equation as eigenvalue solutions. But, irrespective of this equation’s apparent efficiency, it is also purely a mathematical postulate so long as its origin is not clear.
• In astrophysics, centrifugal force (expansion), which is a result of inertia, and gravitation (contraction), which is a result of attraction of masses, are balanced. But “gravitation” complicates every attempt to formulate a unified field theory. Also, this time it is the contracting vortex which is said to be beyond derivation and integration.
It is remarkable how many postulates pertain to the contracting vortex. But this hasn’t always been the case. In ancient Greece 2400 years ago, Demokrit undertook an attempt to formulate a unified physics. He traced all visible and observable structures in nature back to vortices, each time consisting of vortex and anti-vortex. This phenomenon appeared to him to be so fundamental that he equated the term “vortex” to “law of nature”. The term “atom” was originated by Demokrit (460-370 BC).
Within this context, the physicists in ancient times were further along than today’s physicists, which with Maxwell’s approximation neglects the contracting vortex. The absence of the contracting vortex excludes fundamental physical phenomena from the field description, which are replaced by model descriptions and numerous postulates.
What we need is a new field approach which removes this flaw and performs better than Maxwell’s Equations.
Faraday’s Law and Maxwell’s Formulation
The physicist is free to choose any approach that is reasonable and well-founded. Two experimentally-determined regularities serve as the basis for Maxwell’s field equations: on the one hand Ampere’s law, and on the other hand Faraday’s law of induction. The mathematician Maxwell thereby added the finishing touches for the formulations of both laws. He introduced the displacement current D and completed Ampere’s law even though it was not yet measured or proven. Only after his death was this experimentally possible.
Maxwell was completely free to formulate his law of induction because the discoverer, Michael Faraday, had failed to specify it. As a man of practice and of experiment, Faraday was not concerned with mathematical notation. For him the attempts with which he could show his discovery of induction to everybody, e.g. his unipolar generator, stood in the foreground.
40 years younger and a professor of Mathematics, Maxwell had something completely different in mind. He wanted to describe light as an electromagnetic wave. In doing so, certainly the wave description of Laplace went through his mind, which needs a second time derivation of the field factor. Because Maxwell needed two equations for this purpose, each time a first derivation, he had to introduce the displacement current in Ampere’s law and had to choose an appropriate notation for the formulation of the law of induction in order to get the wave equation.
His light theory initially was very controversial. Before Maxwell could mathematically offer reasons for the principle discovered by Faraday, he was acknowledged for bringing the teachings of electricity and magnetism together [5].
Nevertheless, the question should be asked if Maxwell found the suitable formulation, if he perfectly understood his friend Faraday and his discovery. One might expect misunderstandings considering that discovery (from 29.08.1831) and mathematical formulation (1862) stemmed from two different scientists in two different disciplines and in two different eras. It would be helpful to work out the differences.
[see paper images and equations]
Faraday’s Discovery
If one turns an axially polarized magnet or copper disc situated within a magnetic field, then perpendicular to the direction of motion and perpendicular to the magnetic field pointer, a pointer of the electric field will occur, which everywhere points axially to the outside.
In the case of this by Faraday developed unipolar generator hence by means of a brush between the rotation axis and the circumference a tension voltage can be called off [2, Chap. 16.1].
I call the mathematically correct relation, E = v x B, the Faraday-law, even if it only appears in this form in the textbooks later in time [6, pp. 76, 130]. The formulation usually is attributed to the mathematician Hendrik Lorentz, since it appears in the Lorentz force in exactly this form. Much more important than the mathematical formalism however are the experimental results and the discovery by Michael Faraday of the unipolar induction which bears his name.
Of course we must realize that the charge carriers at the time of the discovery hadn’t been discovered yet, and the field concept couldn’t really correspond to that of today. The field concept was an abstracter one, free of any quantization.
That of course is also true for the field concept advocated by Maxwell, which we now will contrast with the “Faraday-law” (Fig. 3). The second Maxwell equation, the law of induction (rot E = -dB/dt, or 1*), also is a mathematical description between the electric field strength E and the magnetic induction B. But this time the two aren’t linked by a relative velocity v.
In that place stands the time derivation of B, with which a change in flux is necessary for an electric field strength to occur. As a consequence, the Maxwell equation doesn’t provide a result in the static or quasi-stationary case, for which cases it is customary to rely upon unipolar induction according to Faraday (e.g. in the case of the Hall-probe, the picture tube, etc.). This reliance upon Faraday should remain restricted to specific cases. What justification exists to support the restriction of the Faraday-law to stationary processes?
The vectors E and B can be subject to both spatial and temporal fluctuations. In that way, the two formulations are suddenly in competition with each other, and we must explain the difference.
Different Formulation of the Law of Induction
Such a difference for instance is that it is common practice to neglect the coupling between the fields at low frequencies. While at high frequencies in the range of the electromagnetic field, the E- and the H-fields are mutually dependent. At lower frequency and small field changes, the process of induction drops according to Maxwell, such that an omission seems to be allowed. Now electric or magnetic fields can be measured independently of each other. Usually, the presence of the other field is ignored.
That is not correct. A look at the Farday-law immediately shows that even down to frequency zero, both fields are always present. The field pointers however stand perpendicular to one another, so that the magnetic field pointer wraps around the pointer of the electric field in the form of a vortex ring. The closed-loop field lines are acting neutral to the outside; hence, they are typically considered to not need any attention. It should be examined more closely if this is sufficient as an explanation for the neglection of the immeasurable closed-loop field lines – or, if not after all an effect arises from fields which are in fact present.
Another difference concerns the commutability of the E- and H-fields, as is shown by the Faraday-generator. How does a magnetic field become an electric field, and vice-versa, as a result of a relative velocity v? This directly influences the physical-philosophic question: What is meant by the electromagnetic field?
The textbook opinion based on Maxwell’s Equations names the static field of the charge carriers as a cause for the electric field, whereas moving charges cause the magnetic field. But that can hardly have been Faraday’s idea, to whom the existence of charge carriers was completely unknown. For his contemporaries, the works of Croatian Jesuit priest Boscovich (1711-1778) were revolutionary. According to his field description, we should be less concerned with a physical quantity in the usual sense than with the “experimental experience” of an interaction. We should interpret the Faraday-law to the effect that we experience an electric field if we are moving with regards to a magnetic field with some relative velocity, and vice-versa.
In the commutability of electric and magnetic fields, a duality between the two is expressed, which in the Maxwell formulation is lost, as soon as charge carriers are brought into play. Is thus the Maxwell field the special case of a particle-free field? Much evidence points to it, because after all, a light ray can run through a particle-free vacuum. If fields can exist without particles, and yet particles without fields are however impossible, then the field should have been there first as the cause for the particles. Then the Faraday description should form the basis, from which all other regularities can be derived. What do the textbooks say to that?
Contradictory Opinions in Textbooks
Obviously, there exist two formulations for the law of unduction (1 and 1*), which more or less have equal rights. The question for science is: which mathematical description is the more efficient one? If one case is a special case of the other case, which description then is the more universal one?
Maxwell’s field equations tell us that derivations are unnecessary because it’s sufficiently known. Numerous textbooks are standing by, if results should be cited. Let us hence turn to the Faraday-law (1). Often one searches in vain for this law in schoolbooks. Only in more pretentious books one can one find it find under the keyword “unipolar induction”. If one however compares the number of pages which are spent on the law of induction according to Maxwell with the few pages for the unipolar induction, then one gets the impression that the latter represents just an unimportant special case for low frequencies. Küpfmüller speaks of a “special form of the law of induction” [7, S.228, Gl.22], and cites as practical examples the induction in a brake disc and the Hall-effect. Afterwards, Küpfmüller derives from the “special form” the “general form” of the law of induction according to Maxwell, a postulated generalization which needs an explanation. But a reason is not given [7].
Bosse gives the same derivation, but for him the Maxwell result, as opposed to the Faraday approach, is the special case [8, chap. 6.1 Induction, S.58]! In addition, he addresses the Faraday-law as an equation of transformation and points out the meaning and the special interpretation.
On the other hand, he derives the law from the Lorentz force, completely in the style of Kupfmuller [7] and with that again takes it part of its autonomy. Pohl sees it differently. He inversely derives the Lorentz force from the Faraday-law [6, S.77]. By all means, the Faraday-law, which we want to base on instead of on the Maxwell equations, shows “strange effects” [9, S.31 comment on the Lorentz force (1.65)] from the point of view of a Maxwell representative of today, and thereby but one side of the coin (eq. 1). The other side of the coin is mentioned in only a very few distinguished textbooks (eq. 2). In that way, most textbooks mediate a lopsided and incomplete picture [7,8,9].
If there should be talk about equations of transformation, then the dual formulation belongs to it, then it concerns a pair of equations, which describes the relations between the electric and the magnetic field.[see paper for formulas]
The Field-Theoretical Approach
[that's all for tonight ...]