[Physics] Aether theory discussion. Was: Re: Why is a new beginning in physics necessary?

[Arend Lammertink]

Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.
W: http://www.tuks.nl
T: +316 5425 6426


On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Koen van Vlaenderen
<koenvanvla at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) replace Lorentz' force for Whittaker 's force law that has an extra
> longitudinal Ampère force component

Very interesting to refer to Whittaker. I found this paper:

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/whit1904.pdf
http://www.rexresearch.com/whittakr/whittakr.htm

On page 5 of the pdf, or page 371 in the original

http://www.rexresearch.com/whittakr/p371.htm ,

we read:

-:-
The formulae thus obtained are not asymmetrical with respect to x, y,
and z. In order to discuss their relation to symmetrical formulae, we
observe that they can be written in the form of vector equations

[d] = curl curl [f] + curl 1/c [g],  [h] = curl 1/c [f] - curl curl [g],

where [d] and [h] are the electric and magnetic vectors, and [f] and
[g] are vectors directed parallel to the axis of z, whose magnitude
are F and G respectively. These vector equations are quite
symmetrical, and our result is that, if, instead of regarding the
electromagnetic field as defined by the vectors [d] and [h], we regard
it as defined by vectors [f] and [g], connected with [d] and [h] by
the above vector equations, then [f] and [g] are simple functions of
the coordinates of the electrons, whereas [d] and [h] are complicated
functions of their velocities and accelerations; and we have also
obtained the result that without loss of generality we can take f and
g to be everywhere, and at all times, parallel to some fixed direction
in space (e.g., the axis of z), a fact which makes possible to specify
them by two scalar quantities only.
-:-

Very interesting that his considerations result in a field description
which is only symmetrical across planes perpendicular with respect to
the z-axis.

Further, we should note that both potentials he calls "scalar
potentials" are actually vector potentials, because they are "directed
parallel to the axis of z".

Finally, it is remarkable that both the vector fields [d] and [h] have
two terms, while the textbook definition for the scalar and vector
potentials, only the definition for the electric potential has two
terms, so the textbook potentials are not defined symmetric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential#Magnetic_vector_potential

I have not yet thought this further true, but Whittaker's paper is
definitely worth further consideration.

Regards,

Arend.