27. Faraday versus Maxwell
Numerous phenomena of the electromagnetic field are described sufficiently accurate by
the Maxwell equations, so that these as a rule are regarded as a universal field description.
But if one looks more exact it turns out to be purely an approximation, which in addition
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?
♦ Faraday instead of Maxwell, which is the more general law of
♦ Can the Maxwell equations be derived as a special case?
♦ Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
♦ Can the gravitation as well be derived and a lot else more?
On the one hand it concerns the big search for a unified physical theory and on the other
hand the chances of new technologies, which are connected with an extended field theory.
As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which roots strictly in textbook physics and
manages without postulate, scalar waves occur, which could be used manifold. In
information technology they are suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated
moredimensionally, and in power engineering the spectrum stretches from the wireless
transmission up to the collection of energy out of the field.
27.1 Energy out of the field
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, which move through space as a scalar
wave. They were introduced by Pauli as massless but energy carrying particles to be able
to fulfil the balance sheet of energy for the beta decay. Nothing would be more obvious
than to technically use the neutrino radiation as an energy source.
But for a technical exploitation a useful model description of the particles and their
interaction is imperative. For the sake of simplicity we imagine the neutrino to be an
oscillating particle, which permanently oscillates back and forth between the state of an
electron and that of a positron. With that the polarity changes from positive to negative
and back again and the charge averaged over time is zero. Because of the change from a
state of matter to the state of an anti-particle also next to no mass can be measured
A technical oscillator operated in resonance, which oscillates with the same frequency but
opposite charge, will interact with the particle and build up an oscillating electromagnetic
interaction, with which we already are familiar as the weak interaction in the proximity of
The propagation of particle radiation as a longitudinal shock wave however can't be
described with the normally used field theory and the Maxwell equations, so that the field
theory at this point must be reworked. Connected with this is the question of what is
oscillating here, a question, which often is answered with an aether of whatever nature. I
speak of field vortices and call the aether a property of the field. With that the set of
difficulties is shifted into the domain of vortex physics.
22.5 Neutrino radiation
The neutrino physicists make the same error. They proceed from the assumption that their
particles are on the way with a speed somewhat less than the speed of light c. This
contradicts the observation according to which black holes should represent strong sources
of neutrinos, which are black only for the reason that no particle radiation is able to escape
them, which is on the way with c or even slower. If a black hole does hurl neutrino
radiation into space, than that must be considerably faster than c, as normal neutrino
physicists still by no means can imagine it today.
But the neutrino radiation only can be detected after it has been slowed down to a value,
which is smaller than c. If the slowing down occurs slightly assymmetrical, then as a
consequence a mean of the mass different from zero appears. The ,,measurement" of such
a rest mass, as it at present is propagated and celebrated, is a classical measurement error!
As long as a neutrino on the way to us still is faster than the light, the mean of its mass is
generally zero. The effective value of the mass of a neutrino is however considerable.
Only it is able to give account for the sought-for dark matter, as far as it must exist in the
today supposed form anyway.
The Tesla radiation, that the discoverer Nikola Tesla already in own experiments had
found out, is faster than light (chapter 9.7 and 17.2). Since this Tesla radiation according
to the description is identical with the neutrino radiation, since it so to say forms a subset,
I will call neutrino radiation all the scalar waves, which are faster than the light. This
stretches from the weak radiation at low frequencies up to the hard neutrino radiation of
cosmic origin. But the hardness of the radiation does not only increase with the frequency,
it in particular increases with the velocity.
The neutrino radiation first of all is carrying energy. On top of this basic wave radiation in
addition information can be modulated. Doing so extremely complex modulation variants
are offering. Of this kind we must imagine thoughts, as being complex modulated vortices,
which can propagate as scalar wave in space. Rupert Sheldrake calls this vortex field a
morphogenetic field. At this place merely is pointed at his very interesting research
Thoughts can be standing in space, in the form of localized noise, but they also can move
with speeds faster than light. According to that a communication with intelligent beings
from other star systems by all means wouldn't be an Utopia anymore.
Every fast neutrino forms an individual ring-like vortex (fig. 7.12). The slower the scalar
wave is, the more dependent the vortices become. The photon already can consist of two
ring-like vortices (fig. 4.6), whereas plasma waves and other slow scalar waves can form
from a multitude of individual vortices, which are rotating around each other, to form
vortex balls and vortex streets (chapter 4.9 - 4.11). From this circumstance already results
very different scalar wave behaviour in the different areas of the velocity of propagation.
This trend for small velocities can as well be observed towards lower frequencies. For a
certain wavelength the frequency after all (according to eq. 22.1) is proportional to the
velocity of propagation
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=30_ ... sublevel=0
In the case of the calculated quasistable particles, the myon and the neutron, the verification by
means of the well-known decay processes is still due. Also free neutrons, those which are
not bound in an atomic nucleus, decay. But with an average life of 918 seconds they are
by far the longest living among the quasistable elementary particles.
Should the neutron decay be triggered by neutrinos, then obviously a distant flying past
does not suffice. For that the electron is bound in the proton too tight. There probably has
to occur a direct "crash", in which a neutrino is used, since the decay equation reads:
As could be expected a proton p+, an electron e- and the mentioned electron-antineutrino
are formed. What here is written down as the emission of an antiparticle, is equivalent
in the absorption of the particle<i>, in this case of the neutrino. The reaction equation 7.15
can be reformulated accordingly<i>:
Also for the decay of the myon an electron-neutrino is used. In both cases it provides the
energy necessary for the decay. But we can really understand the beta-decay only, after we
have got to know these particles better.
Without charge and without mass neutrinos show hardly any interactions with matter and
as a consequence they possess the enormous ability of penetration - as is well-known.
They are said to participate in the ,,weak interaction", which should trigger a conversion of
the concerned particles, which is their decay. Pauli already has postulated the neutrino
1930 theoretically, because the transition from a half-integer spin to an integer spin for the
n0 -decay otherwise wouldn't have been explicable.
If we imagine an elementary vortex is being born, but the local field strength and energy
isn't sufficient for obtaining a quantized state. The result is an incomplete potential vortex,
which has an open vortex centre and as a consequence shows no localization at all. In the
form of a vortex ring it oscillates around itself, while it continually turns its inside to the
outside and then again to the inside.
One moment the vortex ring is green, then it is red again, one moment matter, then antimatter,
one moment positively charged and the next moment negatively charged. In
contrast to the photon the number of the involved elementary vortices Ze for the neutrino is
odd (for the VeZe= 1). Perpendicular to the direction of propagation the neutrino has a spin (s/h= 1/2)
for reason of a rotation, which overlaps the pulsating oscillation.
This vortex ring is, as said, not a member of stationary matter, because it doesn't form a
"black hole" in its centre, where the speed of light becomes zero. But it has an absolute
stability like every elementary vortex, even if it only occurs incomplete and hence not in
any quantized form,. This concept of the electron-neutrino as an open oscillating
elementary vortex in the form of a ring-like vortex covers the experimentally determined
realizations unexpectedly well
Seems like they talk about the same thing to me. Of course not exactly but still.
Pln2bz, may I ask, I have not his book yet, in what way does the Casimir-effect relate to materialization?
StevenO wrote:As for an "easy" introduction to the EM formulas I really recommend "Collective Electrodynamics" from Carver Mead. Just a small booklet of about 100 pages, but great on fundamental insights. As for "alternative equations", most authors go to great lenghts to prove that they are equivalent to Maxwell's equations since these have so much authority. I think the discussion about the Maxwell equations that were "censored" was about Maxwell's use of the Electromagnetic potential that was removed by Heavyside. In the meantime the Electromagnetic potential has been fully restored. Also Carver Mead uses it (and Richard Feynman).
Thanks for the tip. Do you say that Mead en Feynman have re-incorporated/restored the Electromagnetic Potential in a quantum physical way ?
I'm not a physicist either, nor a EE per diploma or degree, so my bias may be even greater
Curious to your link, I remember something vaguely like that.