0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
AbstractThe purpose of this article is to point out that Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory,believed by the majority of scientists a fundamental theory of physics, is in fact builton an unsupported assumption and on a faulty method of theoretical investigation.The result is that the whole theory cannot be considered reliable, nor its conclusionsaccurate descriptions of reality. In this work it is called into question whether radiowaves (and light) travelling in vacuum, are indeed composed of mutually inducingelectric and magnetic fields.IntroductionThis study is addressed to that small percent of students and researchers who suspectthat there is something wrong with the way in which we understand nowadays how radiowaves are generated and how they propagate in space.I know that there is always a feeling of distrust amongst students when universityprofessors obtain the equation of a wave from the four Maxwell’s equations. I felt thatmyself as a student and I have seen it again in the open courses made available on theInternet by prestigious universities of the world. Students ask pertinent questions but theprofessor fails to address the issue.[See //www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJZkjMRcTD4 min. 0:35:00].
Summary In conclusion, in this article it was shown that Maxwell’s theory of electromagneticwaves contains an unfounded assumption, a faulty method of theoretical investigation andmakes a prediction that is contrary to observations.These are:(i) the unfounded assumption that a changing magnetic field B creates (induces) anelectric field E (a.k.a. Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction). In fact, a changingmagnetic field B is observed to produce an electric current J, not an electric field E andthere is a great difference between an electric current J and an electric field E.(ii) the assumption that a changing electric field E creates (induces) a magnetic field B(a.k.a. Maxwell’s correction to Ampere’s Law). This was derived by Maxwell through afaulty method of theoretical investigation, no such effect was known in Maxwell’s timeand no experiment has been made since then that proves this assumption.(iii) the prediction that radio waves and light are composed of entangled electric andmagnetic waves that create (induce) one another in vacuum. No experiment revealed thatradio waves and light have a structure containing electric and magnetic fields.Although it seemed an easy and straightforward matter to accomplish, Faraday failedin his attempt to change the plane of polarization of light travelling in vacuum by theapplication of strong electric and magnetic fields. Only when the polarized beam of lightpassed through glass of great density could this be accomplished, and even then by theapplication of a magnetic field only.Furthermore, Faraday initially applied the magnetic field perpendicular to the ray,believing that this would change the direction of the plane of polarization. Not obtainingany positive result, he then placed the magnetic field parallel to the direction of the ray,and he finally obtained the change he was looking for. But then how can this result bereconciled with the theory in which light is considered to be composed of two transversemagnetic and electric fields? It does not seem that the magnetic field applied by Faradayand the magnetic field of the light-ray vibrating perpendicular to it give a resultant in adifferent plane.
(iii) the prediction that radio waves and light are composed of entangled electric andmagnetic waves that create (induce) one another in vacuum. No experiment revealed thatradio waves and light have a structure containing electric and magnetic fields.Although it seemed an easy and straightforward matter to accomplish, Faraday failedin his attempt to change the plane of polarization of light travelling in vacuum by theapplication of strong electric and magnetic fields. Only when the polarized beam of lightpassed through glass of great density could this be accomplished, and even then by theapplication of a magnetic field only.Furthermore, Faraday initially applied the magnetic field perpendicular to the ray,believing that this would change the direction of the plane of polarization. Not obtainingany positive result, he then placed the magnetic field parallel to the direction of the ray,and he finally obtained the change he was looking for. But then how can this result bereconciled with the theory in which light is considered to be composed of two transversemagnetic and electric fields? It does not seem that the magnetic field applied by Faradayand the magnetic field of the light-ray vibrating perpendicular to it give a resultant in adifferent plane.
Electrodynamics, as Ampere defined it in the early 1820s, is the science of the forcesexerted by electricity in motion.' It emerged as an important field of study soon afterOersted's discovery of electromagnetism. The present book follows the evolution ofthe subject from its beginnings to Einstein's theory of relativity. This is not, however.a purely lllternal history. Proper understanding of some central episodes requiresexcursions into other domains of physics. and even beyond physics: into chemistryin Faraday's case. engineering in Thomson's. and physiology in Helmholtz's. Conversely,the history of electrodynamics illuminates the general history of nineteenthcentury phySICS and its relations with other disciplines.In 1910. Edmund Whittaker published the first volume of his great History ofAether and Electricity, which includes a remarkably clear account of nineteenthcentury electrodynamic theories. Whittaker is most insightful when dealing with theBritish tradition in which he himself was trained. By contrast. his descriptions ofcontinental electrodynamics are often modernized; pay little attention to broadermethodological issues; and largely ignore experimental activity. These flaws havebeen partly corrected by more recent historiography on the subject, yet the newerstudies tend to be local and confined to one actor. to a narrow period of time, or toa given tradition.There is then clearly a need for an up-ta-date synthetic history of electrodynamICS.Studies limited to a short time penod inevitably lose sight oflong-term resourcesand constraints that shape the physicists' activity. This is particularly true when thetime span of the historical account is shorter than the memory of the main actors.For example. the available histories of relativity generally ignore crucial aspects ofnineteenth century electrodynamics of which Einstein was himself aware. Longertermhistory can correct such defects. It also helps perceive large-scale changes inmethods and disciplinary boundaries. For example, the present study documents theincreasing quantification of physics. the evolution of the relationship between theoreticaland expenmental practices, and the merging of theoretical optics and electromagnetism.Taking a bird's eye view. we can better appreciate the continuities,variations, and interplay of various activities and traditions.
The sheer number and variety of nineteenth century publications on electrodynamicsmakes impossible an exhaustive history of the kind given in John Heilbron'sadmirable Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries. To narrow my task, I haveconfined myself to works on the forefront of fundamental electrodynamics. I havefocused on concept formation and methodological innovation, and have neglectedthe more conservative, derivative, or isolated contributions. In particular, I have leftaside technological applications of electricity, unless there was a feedback effect onthe conceptual and instrumental equipment of fundamental electrodynamics. As aconsequence of these choices, the present work ascribes a prominent role to the fewactors who transformed the foundations of electrodynamics by their experimental,conceptual, and institutional efforts. I have nonetheless described the spread and stabilizationof the main innovations, with a special emphasis on those which hadbroader significance in the evolution of nineteenth century physics.Three epistemological themes underly my narrative. The first is the relationbetween experimental and theoretical practice. Until the 1860s, the chief electrodynamicistswere as much experimenters as they were theorists. Their conceptual innovationsdepended on harmonious blends of experimental and theoretical procedures.In order to show how the kind of blend depended on local or individual circumstances,I have adopted a comparative approach, opposing for instance Faraday toAmpere, or Weber to Neumann. The second theme is electrodynamics as a testingground for various forms of mechanical reductionism. Essential innovations in electrodynamictheory depended on attempted reductions to mechanical systems.Conversely, the mechanistic ideal evolved according to the specific needs of electrodynamics.The third theme is the communication between different traditions.A well-known characteristic of the history of electrodynamics is the long coexistenceof field-based and distance-action approaches. Less known are the variousstrategies that physicists of these two traditions developed in order to communicatewIth one another. For example, Maxwell distinguished a more phenomenologicallevel of electrodynamic theory that could be shared by continental physicists; andHelmholtz reinterpreted Maxwell's theory in terms of the continental concept ofpolarization.This thematic structuring reveals new aspects of the history of electrodynamics,and of nineteenth century physics more generally. First, it is shown that thecoordination of experimental and theoretical practice by the same actor involvedmethodological principles that guided both experiment and theory. For example,Faraday followed a principle of contiguity according to which both the explorationand the representation of phenomena were about 'placing facts closely together';Ampere based both his theory and his experiments on the decomposition of electrodynamicsystems into CUlTent elements. When such transverse principles operate,historians can no longer separate the experimental and theoretical activities of agiven actor; and philosophers can no longer regard one activity as simply controllingthe other.'
The theme of mechanical reductionism would bring little historiographicalnovelty if mechanical reduction was regarded as a pure ideal referring to the actors'metaphysics. In this book, however, the emphasis is on the illustrative or algorithmICprocedures that concretize this ideal. These procedures are more variable, morecontext-dependent, and less personal than the idealistic view would imply. Proponentsof the mechanical world-view, like Thomson, Maxwell, and Helmholtz,adjusted their reductionist practices according to the evolving needs of theory constructionand communication. Later opponents of the mechanistic ideal questionednot only its Kantian underpinning, but also its effectiveness for building and expressingtheories.My third theme, the communication between different traditions, is the most likelyto disturb historiographical and epistemological habits. Previous studies of nineteenthcentury physics have oscillated between two extremes. In the more traditional studies,differences between traditions are meant to be decorative, and communicationunproblematic. In the more recent, post-Kuhnian, studies, differences between traditionsare often taken to be so radical that communication is nearly impossible amongthem; knowledge becomes essentially local. An intermediate picture emerges fromthe present study. Several pairs of traditions are identified (British/Continental,WeberianlNeumannian, Thomsonian/Maxwellian, etc.) in which deep differencesexisted at various levels, ranging from ontological commitments to socioinstitutional,experimental, and theoretical practices. Yet representatives of theseantagonistic traditions communicated in ways that permitted comparisons, adaptatIOns,and cross-fertilizations. In fact, the most creative actors desired and plannedthis mteraction. The variety of communication devices described in this study shouldmform discussions of the objectifying and uniformizing goals of science.The main text of this book is organized as follows. Chapter 1 recounts Ampere'sand Faraday's reactions to Oersted's discovery of electromagnetism in the 1820s,and how they founded a new science of electrodynamics. Chapter 2 shows how inthe 1840s two important research traditions emerged in Germany from quantitativestudies of magnetism and electrodynamics, the leaders being Gauss and Weber onthe one hand, and Neumann and Kirchhoff on the other. Chapter 3 is devoted to twosystematic ways of introducing entities in the space between electric and magneticsources: Faraday's in the 1830/40s and William Thomson's in the 1840s. Chapter4 describes the formation of Maxwell's theory until the Treatise of 1873, whileChapter 5 recounts the British elaborations of this theory in the 1880s. Chapter 6shows how Helmholtz provided a general framework for comparing the predictionsof the existing theories of electrodynamics; how Hertz, working in this framework,produced and detected electromagnetic waves; and how German physicists then readMaxwell. Chapters 7 and 8 recount two ways in which ions or electrons were injectedinto Maxwell's theory: in connection with empirical studies of electric conductionthrough solutions and gases, and in connection with the difficulties of electromagneticoptics. Lastly, Chapter 9 deals with various approaches to the electrodynamicsof moving bodies at the beginning of the twentieth century, including Einstein'srelativity theory.
In the more theoretical sections, I show how in some cases the available mathematicsconstrained the conceptual developments, while in some others new physicalpictures caIIed for new mathematics. In the main text, however, I have keptforrr.alism to a minimum. A series of appendices provide more of the mathematicalapparatus. There I freely use anachronistic methods and notations, because my onlypoint is to show briefly the consistency, completeness, and interrelations of the correspondingtheories. In the main text, I have carefully respected the original stylesof demonstration. My only liberty has been to replace Cartesian coordinate notationwith modern vector notation, for the latter can be to a large extent regarded as anabbreviation of the former. Sections devoted to the origins of the vector notationshould correct any resulting misconception.My study of the vast primary literature over the past few years has been greatlyaided by the abundance and exceIIence of more focused histories of electrodynamics.On Ampere, I have often followed Christine BlondeI's elegant, authoritativeaccount. On Faraday, lowe much to Friedrich Steinle's deep and systematic studies,and to earlier works by Pearce Williams, David Gooding, and Manuel Donce!. OnGauss and Weber, and their geomagnetic program, my guides have been ChristaJungnickel and Russel McCormmach. Their monumental history of the rise of theoreticalphysics in Germany has provided much of the background for the Germanside of my story. On Franz Neumann, both his experimental style and his institutionalrole, I have relied on Kathryn Olesko's impressively thorough study. OnWilliam Thomson (Lord Kelvin), lowe much to the important biography by CrosbieSmith and Norton Wise. These scholars highlight the role of Thomson as a culturalmediator and bring out major shifts of British physics in the nineteenth century. OnMaxweII, my main sources have been Peter Harman's exceIIent edition of his lettersand papers, Norton Wise's incisive commentary of the earliest steps to field theory,Daniel Siegel's lucid account of the vortex model, and the descriptions that JedBuchwald and Peter Harman provide of the basic concepts and program of the Treatise.On the spread and evolution of MaxweII's theory in Britain, I have used BruceHunt's admirably rich and well-written book, as well as Buchwald's earlier insightsinto the phenomenological and dynamical aspects of MaxweIIianism. On the crucialrole of the Faraday effect through the history of British field theory, I have frequentlyreferred to Ole Knudsen's illuminating study. On Helmholtz's and Hertz's physics,I profited greatly from Buchwald's latest book, with its acute scrutiny of laboratorywork and the connections he reveals between experimental and theoretical styles.For some aspects of the history of conduction in gases, I have relied on valuablestudies by John Heilbron, Isobel Falconer, Stuart Feffer, and BenOit Lelong. On electrontheories, my main sources have been again Buchwald and Hunt, but also theearlier, insightful studies by Hirosige Tetu. To which I must add, for the later evolutionof the electrodynamics of moving bodies, the competer.t edition of Einstein'spapers under John StacheI's lead (for the two first volumes), and the authoritativestudies by Gerald Holton, Arthur Miller, Michel Paty, and Jiirgen Renn.No matter how rich these sources and how strong my efforts to synthetize andcomplement them, I do not pretend to have closed a chapter of the history of science.
On the contrary, I hope to stimulate further studies and reflections beyond the selfimposedlimitations of my own work and into the gaps of which I am still unconscious.The lofty summits of the history of electrodynamics will no doubt attractnew climbers. I shall be happy if I have marked out a few convenient trails in thismagnificent scenery.The research on which this book is based required access to well-equipped institutes,libraries, and archives. I was fortunate to belong to the REHSEIS group of theCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique and to receive the warm support andcompetent advice of its director, Michel Paty. Most of my reading and writing wasdone in wonderful Berkeley, thanks to John Heilbron's and Roger Hahn's hospitalityat the Office for History of Science and Technology. Even after his retirementfrom Berkeley, John's help and advice have been instrumental in bringing thisproject to completion. I also remember a fruitful year spent at UCLA, in the inspiringcompany of Mario Biagioli. Most recently, I have benefitted from the exceptionalfacilities of the Max Planck Institut fUr Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Berlin,thanks to Jiirgen Renn's regard for in my work.When I came to the history of electrodynamics, I contacted Jed Buchwald, towhose penetrating studies lowed much of my interest in this subject. At every stageof my project, he offered generously of his time to discuss historical puzzles and tohelp sharpen my results and methods. Another leading historian of electrodynamics,Bruce Hunt, has patiently read the whole manuscript of this book and provided muchincisive commentary. This exchange has been exceptionally fruitful and pleasurable.I have also received valuable suggestions from two anonymous reviewers, and technicaladvice from a prominent physicist, Jean-Michel Raimond. My highly competenteditor at Oxford University Press, Sonke Adlung, is partly responsible for thesefruitful exchanges.Some friends and scholars have personally contributed to improve individualchapters of this book. Friedrich Steinle offered valuable comments on the firstchapter. Matthias Dorries clarified obscurities of the second. Fran<;oise Balibarhelped me reshape the three first chapters. Norton Wise discussed with me somemysterious aspects of Thomson's fluid analogies in Chapter 3. Bruce Hunt helpedme refine some of the arguments in Chapters 4 and 5. Andy Warwick showed me achapter of his forthcoming book that illuminates the reception of Maxwell's theoryin Cambridge. Jed Buchwald recommended alterations in Chapter 6. EdwardJurkowitz suggested the characterization of Helmholtz's approach in terms of frameworks.He and Jordi Cat helped me formulate the arguments of Chapter 9.To these colleagues and friends, I express my deepest gratitude, and my apologiesfor having sometimes failed to follow their suggestions. I am of course responsiblefor any remaining imperfections.ParisMay 1999O.D.
Weber electrodynamics is an alternative to Maxwell electrodynamics developed by Wilhelm Eduard Weber. In this theory, Coulomb's Law becomes velocity dependent. In mainstream contemporary physics, Maxwell electrodynamics is treated as the uncontroversial foundation of classical electromagnetism, while Weber electrodynamics is generally unknown (or ignored).
Newton's third law in Maxwell and Weber electrodynamicsIn Maxwell electrodynamics, Newton's third law does not hold for particles. Instead, particles exert forces on electromagnetic fields, and fields exert forces on particles, but particles do not directly exert forces on other particles. Therefore, two nearby particles do not always experience equal and opposite forces. Related to this, Maxwell electrodynamics predicts that the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum are valid only if the momentum of particles and the momentum of surrounding electromagnetic fields are taken into account. The total momentum of all particles is not necessarily conserved, because the particles may transfer some of their momentum to electromagnetic fields or vice versa. The well-known phenomenon of radiation pressure proves that electromagnetic waves are indeed able to "push" on matter. See Maxwell stress tensor and Poynting vector for further details.The Weber force law is quite different: All particles, regardless of size and mass, will exactly follow Newton's third law. Therefore, Weber electrodynamics, unlike Maxwell electrodynamics, has conservation of particle momentum and conservation of particle angular momentum.
AbstractIn electromagnetism, as in Newton’s mechanics, action is always equal toreaction. The force from the electromagnetic field on matter is balanced by anequal and opposite force from matter on the field. We generally speak only offorces exerted by the field, not forces exerted upon the field. But, we should notbe hesitant to speak of forces acting on the field. The electromagnetic field closelyresembles a relativistic fluid and responds to forces in the same way. Analyzingthis analogy sheds light on the inertial role played by the field’s mass, the statusof Maxwell’s stress tensor, and the nature of the electromagnetic field.1 IntroductionNewton’s third law states that whenever one body exerts a force on a second, the secondbody exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. The electromagnetic field exertsforces on matter via the Lorentz force law. I will argue that matter exerts equal andopposite forces on the field.Talk of forces on fields is generally resisted as fields seem too insubstantial to beacted upon by forces. It would be hard to understand how fields could feel forces if theyhad neither masses nor accelerations. Fortunately, fields have both. Fields respond toforces in much the same way that matter does.Few authors explicitly reject the idea that matter exerts forces on the electromagneticfield. Instead, the rejection is implied by conspicuous omission. In deriving anddiscussing the conservation of momentum, one speaks freely of the force on matter butonly of the rate of change of the momentum of the electromagnetic field (e.g., Cullwick,1952; Griffiths, 1999, section 8.2; Rohrlich, 2007, section 4.9).My primary goal in this article is to argue that Newton’s third law holds in the specialrelativistic theory of electromagnetism because the force from the electromagnetic fieldon matter is balanced by an equal and opposite force from matter on the field. I showthat the field experiences forces by giving a force law for the electromagnetic field using hydrodynamic equations which describe the flow of the field’s mass (originally studiedby Poincar´e, 1900). In the course of this analysis I clarify the inertial role played bythe field’s mass—it quantifies the resistance the field itself has to being accelerated. Ialso point out that Maxwell’s stress tensor is in fact a momentum flux density tensor,not—as its title would suggest—a stress tensor, and give the true stress tensor forthe electromagnetic field. Finally, I explore the extent of the resemblance betweenthe electromagnetic field and a relativistic fluid, asking (i) whether we can replaceMaxwell’s equations with fluid equations, (ii) if it is possible to understand the classicalelectromagnetic field as composed of photons, and (iii) how we can attribute propermass to the field.2 Apparent Violation of the Third LawIf one takes charged particles to exert electromagnetic forces directly upon one another ata distance, violations of Newton’s third law are easy to generate. Consider the followingcase (Lange, 2002, section 5.2): There are two particles of equal charge initially heldin place (at rest) and separated by a distance r1. Then, one particle is quickly moveddirectly towards the other as depicted in figure 1 so that at time t the distance betweenthe two particles is r2. Because there is a light-speed delay in the way charged particlesinteract with one another, the force that each particle feels from the other at t cannot becalculated just by looking at what’s going on at t. The force on the stationary particleat t is calculated by looking at the state of the particle that moved at the time when alight-speed signal from that particle would just reach the stationary particle at t. At thisearlier time, the particle was a distance r1 from where the stationary particle is at t. Thegeneral law describing how the force on one charge depends on the state of another at anearlier time is complex,1 but in this simple case where both particles are at rest at therelevant times, the repulsive force that the stationary particle feels at t has magnitudeq˛/r1˛. Similarly, the force on the particle that moved is calculated by looking at the stateof the stationary particle at a time when the stationary particle was at a distance r2from where the particle that moved is at t. The repulsive force the particle that movedfeels at t has magnitude q˛/r2˛, opposite but not equal the force on the stationary particle.As a second example (Griffiths, 1999, section 8.2.1), imagine two particles of equalcharge, both equidistant from the origin and approaching at the same speed. Particle 1approaches along the x-axis from positive infinity and particle 2 along the y-axis. Bothare guided so that they unerringly follow their straight paths at constant speed. In thiscase the electric forces on the two particles are equal and opposite but the magneticforces are equal in magnitude but not opposite in direction. The magnetic force onparticle 1 is in the y-direction whereas the magnetic force on 2 is in the x-direction.According to Griffiths, we should be troubled by this violation because “...theproof of conservation of momentum rests on the cancellation of internal forces, whichfollows from the third law. When you tamper with the third law, you are placing theconservation of momentum in jeopardy, and there is no principle in physics more sacredthan that.” Griffiths then immediately neutralizes the threat, writing that “Momentumconservation is rescued in electrodynamics by the realization that the fields themselvescarry momentum.” Feynman et al. (1964, sections 26-2 and 27-6) respond to apparentviolations of the third law in a similar manner. They write that they will leave it to thereader to worry about whether action is equal to reaction, but point out that momentumis conserved—provided that the field momentum is included—and seem satisfied withthis resolution of the puzzle.
If one takes charged particles to exert electromagnetic forces directly upon one another ata distance, violations of Newton’s third law are easy to generate. Consider the followingcase (Lange, 2002, section 5.2): There are two particles of equal charge initially heldin place (at rest) and separated by a distance r1. Then, one particle is quickly moveddirectly towards the other as depicted in figure 1 so that at time t the distance betweenthe two particles is r2. Because there is a light-speed delay in the way charged particlesinteract with one another, the force that each particle feels from the other at t cannot becalculated just by looking at what’s going on at t. The force on the stationary particleat t is calculated by looking at the state of the particle that moved at the time when alight-speed signal from that particle would just reach the stationary particle at t. At thisearlier time, the particle was a distance r1 from where the stationary particle is at t. Thegeneral law describing how the force on one charge depends on the state of another at anearlier time is complex,1 but in this simple case where both particles are at rest at therelevant times, the repulsive force that the stationary particle feels at t has magnitudeq˛/r1˛
Try this. Acquire a dual port/channel function generator and a DSO. Set it up like normal..i.e....a sine into one channel with a telescopic ant. And a sine,180 out with the first, into the other channel.This will give you a normal fed dipole. Tune that signal in with a radio with BFO and a DSO.It looks and sounds like a normal radio signal.Now, put in a positive full wave precision rectified sine into one element and the opposite polarity precision rectified sine into the other element.Now look and listen to signal. Do you see any difference?
I can not show you the experiment, for I am disabled. To set this up, a decision has to be made. And that is, what frequency to use. The higher the frequency, the more expensive equipment will be needed. The lower the frequency, the more separation room you will need between generator and radio-scope. We don't want any near field connection/coupling.