James Maxwell's Physical Model

[Plasmatic]

Just went back and read some of the earlier posts and found something almost exactly what I am pointing at above! :

There is a direct line of descent from the ideas of Leibniz and
his contemporaries for formal knowledge-representation languages and
mechanized reasoning, through the development of symbolic logic and
formalized mathematics, to the computational models of knowledge
and cognition used in artificial intelligence and cognitive science, but
that is outside the scope of this paper. It suffices here to observe that the
Lullian vision affected the pursuit of method, which occupied many
seventeenth-century philosophers, including Descartes, Bacon, and
Leibniz, for this pursuit was redirected toward a methodology of abstract
relationships among monadic ideas (Ong 1958; Yates 1966, ch.
17; Rossi 2000, ch. 5). Although this drive reached its apex in the logical
positivist philosophy of the early twentieth century, it still survives
in the preference for mathematical abstraction in all scientific theories.

[marengo]

Actually no; it isn’t.

I know that Maxwell made a physical model of the Aether. Are you implying that he made other physical models?
I refer you explicitly to the word 'physical' which is in the topic name. This thread cannot therefore be about the non-physical ideas of Maxwell other than those from which he constructed his model.

[Solar]

Actually no; it isn’t.

I know that Maxwell made a physical model of the Aether. Are you implying that he made other physical models?
I refer you explicitly to the word 'physical' which is in the topic name. This thread cannot therefore be about the non-physical ideas of Maxwell other than those from which he constructed his model.

You are misunderstanding the context of the thread title because you haven't read any of the thread.

What does epistemology mean to you?

Take a peak at this thread: Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed

As you will note the very same individual began the "James Maxwell's Physical Model" thread almost six years ago. Pln2bz (Chris) is VERY interested in 'Knowledge'; its acquisition, how it is used, how individuals come by it, what can be done to better improve it, how individuals interact by way of it etc.

The "James Maxwell Physical Model" thread contrast epistemological 'approaches' i.e. the historical reasonings of Boschovich, Maxwell, Newton, Leibnitz, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato etc. with regard to a variety of topics (mass, matter, force, mechanical models and the like). The Aether has also been mentioned; but It is not the topic.

[marengo]

You are misunderstanding the context of the thread title because you haven't read any of the thread.

I have read enough. But I have read the thread title and it says 'physical model'.
As far as I know the only physical model that Maxwell had constructed was of the Aether.
I am trying to get this thread back on course relative to its title.

If you want to discuss other points then why not start a new thread?

[Solar]

You are misunderstanding the context of the thread title because you haven't read any of the thread.

I have read enough. But I have read the thread title and it says 'physical model'.
As far as I know the only physical model that Maxwell had constructed was of the Aether.
I am trying to get this thread back on course relative to its title.

If you want to discuss other points then why not start a new thread?

If you would like to post something about how Maxwell developed his physical model from referenced source material and/or your own opinion then do so.

[marengo]

If you would like to post something about how Maxwell developed his physical model from referenced source material and/or your own opinion then do so.

I am not an expert on Maxwell. I believe that Fitzgerald (of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect) constructed the model. The model would have been based upon Maxwell's interpretations of his equations of electromagnetism. My point is that his interpretation was wrong, hence his model was wrong. Magnetism is not a characteristic of the Aether. It is a derivative of the electric potential field.

[Solar]

I am not an expert on Maxwell. I believe that Fitzgerald (of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect) constructed the model. The model would have been based upon Maxwell's interpretations of his equations of electromagnetism. My point is that his interpretation was wrong, hence his model was wrong. Magnetism is not a characteristic of the Aether. It is a derivative of the electric potential field.

Within the last two pages of this thread alone you have made the same statement three times (here, (here), and above. Is there a point to repeating it?

Is there anything else that you would like to contribute, as exemplified on page one of this thread, as to 'How' Maxwell developed his physical model other than stating that he was wrong?

[marengo]

Within the last two pages of this thread alone you have made the same statement three times (here, (here), and above. Is there a point to repeating it?

Is there anything else that you would like to contribute, as exemplified on page one of this thread, as to 'How' Maxwell developed his physical model other than stating that he was wrong?

Well, no-one replied to it the first two times.
I thought there might be a possibility that some-one might be interested in why I say that Maxwell was wrong. After-all his equations of electromagnetism are still accepted today.
Perhaps no posters are familiar with electromagnetism and believe they are not capable of informed comment on the subject.
To repeat once more. I say that there is no fundamental force of magnetism. Electromagnetic waves are just electric waves. This is why Maxwells Aether model is wrong.
If you want to know where the magnetic effect comes from I am happy to oblige.

[Solar]

Well, no-one replied to it the first two times.
I thought there might be a possibility that some-one might be interested in why I say that Maxwell was wrong.

Quite a lot of individuals and theories say that ‘Maxwell was wrong’. Without saying in relation to what; it is a rather flat statement.

To repeat once more. I say that there is no fundamental force of magnetism. Electromagnetic waves are just electric waves. This is why Maxwells Aether model is wrong.
If you want to know where the magnetic effect comes from I am happy to oblige.

That “magnetism” isn’t “magnetism” per se; but is instead constituted of “waves” (subsumed under “electric” phenomena) is not a new concept in relation to Aether Theories. One of the earliest Aether theorist who posited this relation was a gentleman by the name of T. J. J. See, who wrote:

If we could prove, for example, that an electric current is nothing but a series of waves of a certain type propagated in the aether along and from the wire which bears the current, and also connect these waves with magnetism and light, by an extension of the reasoning thus laid down, it would add so much to our understanding of the processes underlying the unseen operation of the physical universe, as to be worth of almost any effort.

(...)

… we shall now see if it is possible to find corresponding oscillation in the field of a magnet and of an electric current. – New Theory of the Aether: T. J. J. See

Moving to page 241/242 as listed in the left-hand column we see the graphic Fig.2. captioned as: “The wave-theory of magnetism which gives a direct and simple explanation of both attraction and repulsion, and harmonizes the known phenomena of magnetism, optics and electrodynamic action.” In relation to this graphic depiction Mr. See states on the same page:

Now if I understand this subject aright – and my personal correspondence with the later Lord Rayleigh shows that he concurred in the present writers views – we must conceive of a line of force, circling around between the poles of a magnet, to be the axis of rotation in magnetic wave-motion, as shown by figure 2, repeated from the first paper on the New Theory of the Aether. – pg 5079 New Theory of the Aether “T. J. J. See

Later still:

By connecting magnetism with electrodynamic action and with gravitation we know all these action take place with the velocity of light.

15. Since magnetism is thus connected with electrodynamic action, and shows to travel with the velocity of light, and on the other hand directly connected with gravitation through the semidiurnal magnetic tide depending on the moon, we perceive that gravitation must be propagated with the velocity of light, and therefore all these forces necessarily depend on waves. – page 5079 The New Theory of the Aehter: T. J. J. See

We can dispense with whether or not the ‘speed of gravity’ may be faster than the “speed of light” in order to focus on the wave theory, “electric” or otherwise, of what is perceived of as ”magnetism”. Even today with regard to Aether Theories one can find the tenant that “magnetism” only ‘appears’ to be a separate and distinct “force” but that instead the quality called “magnetism” is a (“subtype”) frequency function of “electric waves” – which then obviously infers variations in ‘waves, ‘wave lengths’, and ‘wave speeds’ interacting and self-differentiating:

All forms of electric energy deploy constitutive magnetic waves and diamagnetic fields, but the energy associated with magnetism is electric, and not magnetic. Similarly, all the magnetic frequency functions that we have identified and analyzed are found to be subtypes of electric (nonquantum or Teslan) frequency functions. – Aetherometric Theory of Magnetism

So.....

[marengo]

Solar
Thanks for the reply BUT it all makes no sense to me. There is no physics in it.

I will try to explain magnetism but it is a longish story.
A good example of the magnetic effect is given by a current carrying wire. The so-called magnetic lines of force are circles around the wire.
When a test charge approaches the wire it experiences a force at right angles to its movement and proportional to its velocity. This right angle force is called the magnetic effect.

Similarly if the test charge moves parallel to the wire it also experience a force at right angles.
Thus whatever the direction of movement the test charge experiences a force at right angles to its movement.
Before i go on I would like to see if you (or any one else)agrees with that so far.

[Solar]

Solar
Thanks for the reply BUT it all makes no sense to me. There is no physics in it.

“Physics” according to ‘Who’? The statement is of no value.

The statement actually reads ‘There’s no Merengo’s physics in it.’

You’ve uttered that vague and dismissive statement before contemptuously implying that your subjective idea, or concept, of “physics” is the only form of “physics” one need to be concerned with. It isn’t. Contrasting and comparing different ideas is the general theme. Without this even your very own treatise could not have been written.

I will try to explain magnetism but it is a longish story.
A good example of the magnetic effect is given by a current carrying wire. The so-called magnetic lines of force are circles around the wire.
When a test charge approaches the wire it experiences a force at right angles to its movement and proportional to its velocity. This right angle force is called the magnetic effect.

Similarly if the test charge moves parallel to the wire it also experience a force at right angles.
Thus whatever the direction of movement the test charge experiences a force at right angles to its movement.
Before i go on I would like to see if you (or any one else)agrees with that so far.

That is theoretical physics. A "test charge" isn't a real thing but rather an idealized hypothetical; but so are "lines of force" and the like. Just to make sure that we know this is all about the ideas in one's head ("mental pictures" as you've characterized it elsewhere). I don't think anyone is going to "agree" with it because it’s pure theoretics. Theoretics can have some credence or support given to them by way of experimentation but it needs to be recognized for what it is. Theory.

The basic idea of Marengo’s approach to “Magnetism” is summarized on page 23 of you treatise. The geometry basically present ‘comets’ (one moving along the length of a wire; the other idealized in the space of the electric field in the form of a theoretical “test particle” that is also in motion at a different speed). The ‘comets’ are moving at different velocities which ‘contracts and rotates’ the electric field. In layman’s terms, between the two ‘comets’, the “electric field” is ‘squished’ and slightly ‘’twisted’ (think spiral or vortex) instead of being in the idealized 90 degrees form that one usually sees magnetic field lines and/or electric field lines portrayed.

However, as a result of this there still remains a ‘modified small component’ of the “electric potential field” at 90 degrees; not exactly a ‘residual’ but a 'modified' aspect of the electric potential induced by the different speeds of our little 'comet'-like "charges". It is this 90 degree ‘modified’ component of the ‘electric field’ that becomes interpreted as the “magnetic field”. The whole of this dynamic stems from the “pressure difference” posited in your theory that a “particle” (a charge”/your “FMP’s”) generates on the “ambient” field when said "particles" are traveling at different speeds in relation to one another in said "ambient" field.

As relates Maxwell your treatise asserts that his flaw was in considering the “magnetic field” and the “electric field” as two distinct aspects of the Aether whereas your treatise posits that “only the electric and gravitational potentials are physical properties of the Aether.”

Is that summary about right? If not; fix it – but do get on with it.

[marengo]

That is theoretical physics. A "test charge" isn't a real thing but rather an idealized hypothetical; but so are "lines of force" and the like. Just to make sure that we know this is all about the ideas in one's head ("mental pictures" as you've characterized it elsewhere). I don't think anyone is going to "agree" with it because it’s pure theoretics. Theoretics can have some credence or support given to them by way of experimentation but it needs to be recognized for what it is. Theory.

You are wrong. A test charge is a real thing. It could be an electron or a proton, for example. You are effectively saying that electrons and protons do not exist as real particles. Does that also mean that you think atoms, constructed of electrons and protons, do not exist?

As relates Maxwell your treatise asserts that his flaw was in considering the “magnetic field” and the “electric field” as two distinct aspects of the Aether whereas your treatise posits that “only the electric and gravitational potentials are physical properties of the Aether.”

Is that summary about right? If not; fix it – but do get on with it.

Your summary of my explanation of magnetism loses something in the conversion.
My main point is that magnetism is a derivative of the electric field and hence is not fundamental as is the electric potential. Maxwell was therefore in error to consider magnetism to be a property of the Aether. That is why his physical model is incorrect.

Of course you may think that my explanation of magnetism is false. If so I would like to know where you think my explanation is in error.

[Solar]

You are wrong. A test charge is a real thing. It could be an electron or a proton, for example. You are effectively saying that electrons and protons do not exist as real particles. Does that also mean that you think atoms, constructed of electrons and protons, do not exist?

Theoretical physics; is theoretical physics:

In physical theories, a test particle is an idealized model of an object whose physical properties (usually mass, charge, or size) are assumed to be negligible except for the property being studied, which is considered to be insufficient to alter the behavior of the rest of the system. The concept of a test particle often simplifies problems, and can provide a good approximation for physical phenomena. In addition to its uses in the simplification of the dynamics of a system in particular limits, it is also used as a diagnostic in computer simulations of physical processes. – Test Particle: Wiki

That is what you have in your treatise, in the space above the wire; an idealized particle created by fiat. You're not the first to invent one, you won't be the last.

As relates Maxwell your treatise asserts that his flaw was in considering the “magnetic field” and the “electric field” as two distinct aspects of the Aether whereas your treatise posits that “only the electric and gravitational potentials are physical properties of the Aether.”

Is that summary about right? If not; fix it – but do get on with it.

Your summary of my explanation of magnetism loses something in the conversion.

You could, and should've, summarized it yourself. It is after all YOUR theory. Why is my conveyance of your theory more explanative than has been your very own efforts for same on this forum and in your very own thread no less??

My main point is that magnetism is a derivative of the electric field and hence is not fundamental as is the electric potential. Maxwell was therefore in error to consider magnetism to be a property of the Aether. That is why his physical model is incorrect.

Of course you may think that my explanation of magnetism is false. If so I would like to know where you think my explanation is in error.

Its neither true nor false. It is a theory - one that theoretically posits an origin for "magnetism". Nothing more; nothing less.

You have used a relativist tactic in relation to the thread title to assert that Maxwell was “wrong”. This, based on a faux desire to supposedly get a six year old thread of which you know little “back on tract”; only to then say, that you’re not an expert on Maxwell (here)- only to further, segue way into your own theory (as if no one could see that coming). It was a glaringly obvious and unnecessary shortcut.

If the totality of your explanation as to ‘Why’ or ‘How’ Maxwell is supposedly “wrong” about something only amounts to simply repeating the same statement over and over again … we’re done. I’m not trying to be harsh or mean.

I was waiting for an explanation, a few qualitative paragraphs or so as to ‘How’ it is that you are stating that Maxwell was “wrong”. Other than that; repeating the same statement, or opinion, over and over again simply amounts to pointlessly hijacking this thread relative to its title to discuss your theory when there already exist a thread for same.

[marengo]

Theoretical physics; is theoretical physics:

Ok, so you dont believe in atoms.

That is what you have in your treatise, in the space above the wire; an idealized particle created by fiat. You're not the first to invent one, you won't be the last.

It wasn't me who 'invented' electrons.

You could, and should've, summarized it yourself. It is after all YOUR theory. Why is my conveyance of your theory more explanative than has been your very own efforts for same on this forum and in your very own thread no less??

My own explanation has the advantage of being correct.

Its neither true nor false. It is a theory - one that theoretically posits an origin for "magnetism". Nothing more; nothing less.

You have used a relativist tactic in relation to the thread title to assert that Maxwell was “wrong”. This, based on a faux desire to supposedly get a six year old thread of which you know little “back on tract”; only to then say, that you’re not an expert on Maxwell (here)- only to further, segue way into your own theory (as if no one could see that coming). It was a glaringly obvious and unnecessary shortcut.

If the totality of your explanation as to ‘Why’ or ‘How’ Maxwell is supposedly “wrong” about something only amounts to simply repeating the same statement over and over again … we’re done. I’m not trying to be harsh or mean.

I was waiting for an explanation, a few qualitative paragraphs or so as to ‘How’ it is that you are stating that Maxwell was “wrong”. Other than that; repeating the same statement, or opinion, over and over again simply amounts to pointlessly hijacking this thread relative to its title to discuss your theory when there already exist a thread for same.

My explanation of magnetism predicts the observed effects of magnetism but simplifies the Universe in that there are now only two force potentials instead of three. According to Occam's razor my theory is to be preferred as it is the less complex.
It is true that I am not an expert on Maxwell. But I do know a bit about electromagnetism, possibly more than most.
As to highjacking this thread I have brought it back to its original title. The highjacking was done before I appeared.

[Solar]

My own explanation has the advantage of being correct.

Then rest peacefully in its assuring comforts and be well friend. Goodbye.