Weber Electrodynamics

[Researcher720]

Hi,
I am new to the Forums, so if I'm not in the right place for this topic, please let me know.

I have done a lot of research on Weber electrodynamics. (Don't believe what you read on the Wikipedia page on this topic. It is very old and not correct....) I'd like to discuss what I've found. I think it could be very important to the Electric Universe models. I'd also like to hookup with anyone doing plasma research/simulations to see if Weber's electrodynamics could be used in the simulations instead of Maxwell's electrodynamics. What would plasma cosmology and models of the Sun and solar system look like using Weber electrodynamics?

In a few words, what I have found is that Maxwell's electrodynamics carries 2 implicit restrictions (so it is not mathematically consistent). When these restrictions are removed, and 2 terms added to the scalar potential function, you end up with Weber's electrodynamics. In this way, Weber's electrodynamics is a correction and extension of Maxwell's electrodynamics. So, I have written the 4 Maxwell differential equations for Weber's electrodynamics. Weber's electrodynamics is every bit a field theory as is Maxwell's electrodynamics.... It is simple to go from Maxwell to Weber. And Weber, now, looks a lot like Maxwell....

These are statements of mathematics. I have focused on the mathematics because math is provable.

Anyway, if you are interested, please let me know.

I love questions. Feel free to ask.

A summary of my work is available at http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/

[Higgsy]

Hi,
I am new to the Forums, so if I'm not in the right place for this topic, please let me know.

I have done a lot of research on Weber electrodynamics. (Don't believe what you read on the Wikipedia page on this topic. It is very old and not correct....) I'd like to discuss what I've found. I think it could be very important to the Electric Universe models. I'd also like to hookup with anyone doing plasma research/simulations to see if Weber's electrodynamics could be used in the simulations instead of Maxwell's electrodynamics. What would plasma cosmology and models of the Sun and solar system look like using Weber electrodynamics?

In a few words, what I have found is that Maxwell's electrodynamics carries 2 implicit restrictions (so it is not mathematically consistent). When these restrictions are removed, and 2 terms added to the scalar potential function, you end up with Weber's electrodynamics. In this way, Weber's electrodynamics is a correction and extension of Maxwell's electrodynamics. So, I have written the 4 Maxwell differential equations for Weber's electrodynamics. Weber's electrodynamics is every bit a field theory as is Maxwell's electrodynamics.... It is simple to go from Maxwell to Weber. And Weber, now, looks a lot like Maxwell....

These are statements of mathematics. I have focused on the mathematics because math is provable.

Anyway, if you are interested, please let me know.

I love questions. Feel free to ask.

A summary of my work is available at http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/

I suppose you are wondering why your post has got zero traction when you claim to have discovered some fundamental things about electromagnetic theory, which ought to interest the EU crowd. Well, the reason is that EU supporters on this forum fail to understand that physics is a mathematically based science and not a single one of them understands the first thing about what your post and your website are claiming. Not a single one of them is capable of solving undergraduate problems in electromagnetism.

Anyway, I have looked briefly at your website, specifically the page "Problems with Maxwell's Electrrodynamics". Here are a few comments from me. I don't see the first inconsistency that you claim. The standard potential definition of the electric field is that it is equal to the negative of (the gradient of the electric potential plus the time derivative of the vector potential). That is the general case. Where the vector potential is non-time varying the electric field reduces to the gradient of the electric potential. You don't have to define separate fields. There is just an electric field defined as above and if the vector potential is stationary in time the second term goes to zero. This works in any gauge you choose. For example it holds in the Lorenz gauge. If the electric potential and the time derivative of the vector potential are non-zero but non-time varying then the electric field is also non-time varying - it is a static field. If either or both the electric potential or the time derivative of the vector potential are time varying, then so will be the electric field.

Why do you believe that the differential form of Gauss's law is defined only for a non-time varying electric field? If you make E a function of time and rho also a function of time, the equation remains true: divergence E(r,t) = rho(r,t)/epsilon nought. Gauss's law as generally conceived, in electrostatics, is a special case of this.

Since your second inconsistency depends on your first, and your fiirst inconsistency isn't an inconsistency at all, then neither is your second inconsistency inconsistent. I don't see the problem and I don't see the need for a solution to a non-existent problem.

[D_Archer]

Hi,
I am new to the Forums, so if I'm not in the right place for this topic, please let me know.

I have done a lot of research on Weber electrodynamics. (Don't believe what you read on the Wikipedia page on this topic. It is very old and not correct....) I'd like to discuss what I've found. I think it could be very important to the Electric Universe models. I'd also like to hookup with anyone doing plasma research/simulations to see if Weber's electrodynamics could be used in the simulations instead of Maxwell's electrodynamics. What would plasma cosmology and models of the Sun and solar system look like using Weber electrodynamics?

In a few words, what I have found is that Maxwell's electrodynamics carries 2 implicit restrictions (so it is not mathematically consistent). When these restrictions are removed, and 2 terms added to the scalar potential function, you end up with Weber's electrodynamics. In this way, Weber's electrodynamics is a correction and extension of Maxwell's electrodynamics. So, I have written the 4 Maxwell differential equations for Weber's electrodynamics. Weber's electrodynamics is every bit a field theory as is Maxwell's electrodynamics.... It is simple to go from Maxwell to Weber. And Weber, now, looks a lot like Maxwell....

These are statements of mathematics. I have focused on the mathematics because math is provable.

Anyway, if you are interested, please let me know.

I love questions. Feel free to ask.

A summary of my work is available at http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/

Hi,

Welcome. You can ignore mr Spooky above.

Not many respond because Weber (as far as i have read about it) is likely not correct, that is probably the reason it is ignored here and even by mainstream.

Maxwell > http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=141
Weber (also no responses)> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16863

And in the end Weber and Maxwell are just 'theories', models can work but they are not physical theories.

And here we do not focus on math, because math is the opposite of provable in the physical sciences. You need to understand physically what is happening, math comes later, it is wholly secondary.

Regards,
Daniel

[Aardwolf]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

[Higgsy]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

So are you suggesting that Maxwell’s equations (Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism) have no relation to reality? Or is that quaotation just an excuse for not understanding them?

[Higgsy]

And in the end Weber and Maxwell are just 'theories', models can work but they are not physical theories.

And you obviously have no idea what the word ‘theory’ means in science.

And here we do not focus on math, because math is the opposite of provable in the physical sciences. You need to understand physically what is happening, math comes later, it is wholly secondary.

Physics is a mathematical science. That is, the language of physics is mathematics. What you observe in the lab is described mathematically. Without maths what you have is not physics but a verbal quasi-religious cargo cult as practised by the EU crowd.

[Researcher720]

Thanks, Higgsy, for your response.

Note that in Maxwell's electrodynamics, considered as a mathematical, logic, system,
not considering the physics, that it uses the symbol "E" for two different things. Yes,
I agree that the so called "static" case is a special case of the "dynamic" case, but
it is using the same symbol for both cases. That leads to a contridiction.

Set that argument aside.

When you see
div E = (1/e0) rho
how do you know that E = -grad phi - @A/@t ("@" here mean partial derivative)
or that E = -grad phi is being refered to? That's what I am pointing
out. By *doing* the math, I find E = -grad phi
is the correct choice, and that E = -grad phi -@A/@t is not the correct choice. So, there
needs to be some indication of this in/with the equation. As I point out on the web page,
there are a couple of different ways to do this. One is to explicitly state with the
equation that @A/@t = 0 is being applied. Nothing wrong with that.
But then this restriction must be applied to all other equations thereafter.
As a system of equation, taken as a whole, you can not impose a restriction just on one equation and not on all other equations.

The second problem with Maxwell's electrodynamics that I point out does not depend on
the first problem (the above problem). Again *doing the math* shows that for Ampere's
circital law with the displacement current term requires (for the least number of restrictions)
the use of E = -grad phi, and not E = -grad phi - @A/@t, together with 2 restrictions. That's math, not physics
(although Ampere's law can be applied to physics, of course). Since it is math, it is provable.

From an experimental point of view, Weber's electrodynamics, Weber's force law, explains
the so-called "exploding wire" experiments of Graneau (see his books), all the experiments
that Ampere performed regarding the development of Ampere's force equation (Ampere's
force equation is a special case of Weber's force equation). Since the Lorentz force
equation is not compatible with Maxwell's electrodynamics, but is compatible with
Weber's electrodynamics, experiments proving Lorentz force equation is supporting
Weber's electrodynamics, not Maxwell's electrodynamics.

As you might guess, I think it is critical to get electrodynamics "correct", in the non-special theory of
relativity regime, since some much depends on it. By "correct" I mean a consistent mathematical system
provable by math and logic.

Also, do you have a reference showing Maxwell's 4 equations for discrete sources? I think I read that there
isn't such a thing because Maxwell's 4 equations is only defined for the continuous source case. (I think
this had something to do with the definition of the magnetic induction field being defined only for
continuous current sources.) Is this true? Note that Weber's electrodynamics is defined first for discrete
sources, including 4 differential Maxwell-like equations. Discrete sources case is the more fundamental since
all charges are discrete. If it is true that Maxwell's electrodynamics (with the 4 differential equations) is not
defined for discrete sources, well, another plus for Weber and a minus for Maxwell.... Let me know if you
have a reference.

I would think people in plasma research would be very interested in this Weber topic....

[celeste]

Very interested, thank you.

The general argument of discrete vs continuous, matters a great deal in Birkeland currents. There is an idea out there, that if we could know the exact positions and momentums of small scale objects, ( ions and electrons in the solar system), we can explain the rotation, orbits, masses, spins, etc, of planets based on that. As it turns out, rules such as Titius-Bode, the Kozai relationship of orbital inclinations to eccentricities, come only from considering the continuous ( wavelike), structure of the interstellar medium. In other words, even if we agree that the sun and planets travel through a plasma composed of “ions” and “electrons” at the solar system scale, only the continuous wavelike structure of a Birkeland current ( built up from the flow of small scale charged particcles!), can explain orbital spacing, the eccentricity vs inclination relationship for orbits, etc.

[D_Archer]

I would think people in plasma research would be very interested in this Weber topic....

No, not really, unless you can explain why or how it would influence the field, without math, but in a physical , real world understanding of plasma physics, or what it means for plasma when Weber is actually applied. Does it change any current understanding? Does it point to a better understanding? how? etc.. and you have to explain it in physical term (again not with math).

Regards,
Daniel

[Researcher720]

Hi D_Archer, Thanks for your comments.

I thought math is to be *the* language of science. (Is there any other option?)

And I thought the scientific process was something like 1) Predict the results
of a proposed experiment, 2) Perform the experiment, 3) Compare prediction to
experimental results. I would expect step (1) would be (not exclusively) math. According
to some theory, we predict, through the theory's math, that an experiment
would produce these results.... Do the experiment to show the math did predict
the experimental results, or not.

I also don't see how to analyze the collected experimental data without math.
The math being based on the theory chosen. Different theory, different math, different
analysis of the experimental data.

Experiment is king, but math is queen. And they go hand-in-hand.

And from what I've been able to calculate, so far, Weber's electrodynamics appears to
be more mathematically consistent than Maxwell's electrodynamics. So wouldn't
physicists prefer to use a consistent mathematical system than one that isn't?

[Aardwolf]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

So are you suggesting that Maxwell’s equations (Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism) have no relation to reality?

You'll need to ask Tesla. It's his quote.

Or is that quaotation just an excuse for not understanding them?

Your knowledge of what I understand equates to nil. However, as it's Tesla's quote, do you think he didn't understand them?

There's nothing wrong with using maths to describe a given phenomena as you may understand it, the problem is when you start putting the cart before the horse and believing the formulas somehow prove your theory to be the one and only arbiter of all things truthful. Unfortunately all you do is chase the rabbit down the hole.

[Aardwolf]

Here's a link to someone who believed in their maths, followed by 1,400 years of other people believing in it;

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy

Ptolemy
The book that is now generally known as the Almagest (from a hybrid of Arabic and Greek, “the greatest”) was called by Ptolemy Hē mathēmatikē syntaxis (“The Mathematical Collection”) because he believed that its subject, the motions of the heavenly bodies, could be explained in mathematical terms.

No doubt Higgsy would approve of his work, it is after all proven by his maths.

[D_Archer]

Hi D_Archer, Thanks for your comments.

I thought math is to be *the* language of science. (Is there any other option?

Science is not math. Science is observation first, so a picture is the first language of science. Science is also measurement, after measurement you get data, data is a language of science. Science is also experiment, an experimental result is the language of science. See, you can do science without any math.

And I thought the scientific process was something like 1) Predict the results
of a proposed experiment, 2) Perform the experiment, 3) Compare prediction to
experimental results. I would expect step (1) would be (not exclusively) math. According
to some theory, we predict, through the theory's math, that an experiment
would produce these results.... Do the experiment to show the math did predict
the experimental results, or not.

You go wrong at 1), an experiment is done first, the results can later be modeled (and/or put into a theory), described in math, diagrams, just plain English. When the theory is correct it may or may not be predictive and you could use it as a basis for other experiments, but it does not come first. Also before someone does an experiment one first uses intuitive thinking to come up with the experiment in the first place.

I also don't see how to analyze the collected experimental data without math.
The math being based on the theory chosen. Different theory, different math, different
analysis of the experimental data.

Experiment is king, but math is queen. And they go hand-in-hand.

And from what I've been able to calculate, so far, Weber's electrodynamics appears to
be more mathematically consistent than Maxwell's electrodynamics. So wouldn't
physicists prefer to use a consistent mathematical system than one that isn't?

You can analyze data as a person and intuit many things without math.

I would say that only mathematicians would prefer math, not real physicists. Math is a tool, it is not any more capable in theory building than a language is. Also math in the twentieth century has been a hindrance to progress where theorists are lost in the math. This is because math is not reality, it is always a step behind (removed from) reality, ie it is abstract.
---

If you want to sell me Weber, please show more than math.

I watched all the MIT lectures on E/M from the professor with the banana, he made diagrams and he showed experiments. He ended with math, but showed how he got there. Still not perfect, and still very mainstream approved and still just modeling E/M with mostly math instead of a real physical understanding of the processes, it was still good, because the math is workable (ie applicable to) for real world electrical engineering.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. i think the real physics of E/M need more than just ions and electrons, we need a subfield (ie photons) to explain it all and maybe more....

[Researcher720]

If you want to sell me Weber, please show more than math.

See the books by Graneau "Newtonian Electrodynamics," and "Ampere-Neumann electrodynamics of metals" as well as the book by Assis "Ampère's Electrodynamics". These provide lots of experiments, including Ampere's original experiments, used in the development of Ampere's force equation, which is part of Weber's more general force equation. Additionally, all experiments that show Lorentz force equation is "correct", in non-special relativity regime, is further support for Weber's electrodynamics because the Lorentz force equations is not compatible with Maxwell's electrodynamics (not compatible in the mathematical sense).

I like your "math isn't physics" point of view. Thanks. You've given me something to think about.

[Higgsy]

I would think people in plasma research would be very interested in this Weber topic....

To R720: People in plasma research would be interested if you can convince them that you have a case. One of your difficulties is to convince plasma researchers that the inconsistency you see in Maxwell's theory, is actually inconsistent (I don't think it is). The other difficulty you face on this forum is that there are no plasma researchers here.

No, not really, unless you can explain why or how it would influence the field, without math, but in a physical , real world understanding of plasma physics, or what it means for plasma when Weber is actually applied.

Without maths? You really think that any plasma physics can be done without maths? No wonder no-one takes you guys seriously.

Does it change any current understanding?

Well, you wouldn't know because you don't have any current understanding of plasma physics, not even page 1 of the most elementary text.

Does it point to a better understanding? how? etc.. and you have to explain it in physical term (again not with math).

That's absolutely the opposite of what you have to do with real plasma physicists. With those you have to show mathematically how the Weber formulation of EM theory leads to better and more accurate predictions of actual plasma phenomena.

To R720: You're wasting your time with these guys - they don't do physics - they do fantasy word-smithing.