[Physics] Mathematical proof Maxwell's equations are incorrect?

[Maurice Daniel]

Arend Lammertink,

If you are not already aware of the works of Professor Oleg D. Jefimenko, (1922 to 2009)  physicis and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University; author of such works as: “Causality Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation” then I suggest you read some of his books.  He has discussion of these topics, and like you, he has dispute with two of Maxwell’s equations.  He was also able to combine electromagnetism and gravity.  

I studied vector math at one time, but now I have forgotten most of it so I cannot follow your arguments.  It would be interesting to know if you have reached the same conclusions as Prof. Jefimenko.  If so, this would lend powerful support to your arguments.  

Let me know if this is helpful to you.  

- - - Maurice Daniel - - - 





Maurice Daniel
5D at earthlink.net


> On Apr 23, 2020, at 2:09 AM, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear List members,
> 
> I have been studying Tesla for quite some time now and became
> convinced longitudinal waves exist and that they propagate faster than
> light. For quite some time, I have been working on the theory, which
> culminated in the attached draft paper on revision of Maxwell's
> equations. During the past week, I had a discussion about this on the
> "Theoretical Physics" LinkedIn group, which made me realise how
> important the vector Laplace equation is and believe I now have the
> mathematical proof that Maxwell's equations are incorrect. This is the
> short version of the argument:
> 
> -:-
> "The Laplace operator is not some sacred physical law of the universe,
> it is a mathematical relation".
> 
> Yes, it's a relation of which the correctness is pretty much
> undisputable, like 1+1=2.
> 
> Equate this equation to zero and one obtains the 3D Laplace equation
> of which the solutions are the harmonic functions, which (when worked
> out) describe all possible (harmonic) wave phenomena in 3D:
> 
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0.
> 
> This can be re-written as:
> 
> -∇²𝐅= - ∇(∇·𝐅) + ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0.
> 
> Then, the terms in this equation can be written out as follows:
> 
> 𝐀= ∇×𝐅
> Φ= ∇⋅𝐅
> 𝐁= ∇×𝐀= ∇×(∇×𝐅)
> 𝗘=−∇Φ= −∇(∇⋅𝐅)
> 
> And because of vector identities, one can also write:
> 
> ∇×𝗘= 0
> ∇⋅𝐁= 0
> 
> So, any given vector field 𝐅 can be decomposed like this into a
> rotation free component 𝗘 and a divergence free component 𝐁.
> 
> There is no argument this is mathematically consistent, nor that the
> solutions to the equation -∇²𝐅= 0 are the harmonic wave functions in
> 3D.
> 
> Now compare this to Maxwell's:
> 
> 𝗘= −∇Φ− ∂𝐀/∂t
> 
> Take the rotation at both sides of the equation and we obtain the
> Maxwell-Faraday equation:
> 
> ∇×𝗘= - ∂𝐁/∂t
> 
> WP: "Faraday's law of induction (briefly, Faraday's law) is a basic
> law of electromagnetism predicting how a magnetic field will interact
> with an electric circuit to produce an electromotive force (EMF)—a
> phenomenon known as electromagnetic induction."
> 
> This is a circuit law, which predicts how a magnetic field will
> interact with electrons moving trough a wire. Since this involves
> moving charge carriers, which are particles, it is illogical to
> introduce this law at the medium/field modelling level. Because of the
> wave-particle duality principle, it is known that particles are
> manifestations of the EM field. So, by including this law in the
> medium/field model one introduces circular logic.
> 
> Not only that, it breaks the fundamental separation of the fields into
> a divergence free component and a rotation free component.
> 
> As is well known, this model eventually leads to two mutually
> exclusive theories, which cannot both be correct.
> 
> In other words: what you are doing by introducing Faraday's law at
> this level in the model is you are insisting 1+1 is not 2, but
> something else.
> 
> And you end up with 150+ years of trying to find additional equations
> to straighten things out, but the bottom line is: 1+1=2, NOT something
> else
> 
> [...]
> 
> "How does it break "the fundamental separation of the fields into a
> divergence free component and a rotation free component."? "
> 
> As shown, the 3D vector Laplace equation defines two components, one
> of which is divergence free and one of which is rotation free.
> 
> Since the 3D vector Laplace equaton is nothing but a 3D generalization
> of the lower dimensional Laplace equation and results in harmonic
> solutions, which is all well established undisputable math, it follows
> that the decomposition into a divergence free component and a rotation
> free component is fundamental and is therefore the only correct way to
> derive wave functions in 3D for any given vector field.
> 
> There is no argument that with equating the rotation of the rotation
> free component 𝗘 to the time derivative of the divergence free (and
> therefore rotational) component 𝐁 by Maxwell results in 𝗘 remaining
> to be rotation free and therefore such breaks said fundamental
> separation of said components.
> -:-
> 
> I have some rewriting to do of the article, because I now realize it's
> perfectly O.K. to have the primary field, which I denoted [V], as the
> null vector field, since in the Laplace equation the right side of the
> equation is also zero, so we don't have to resort to discrete math.
> So, for the time being, I included part of the discussion on LinkedIn,
> which I think you'll find interesting.
> 
> In short: I believe to have found the foundation for that Theory of
> Everything scientists have been looking for for a very long time.
> 
> I would love to hear your opinion about this.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Arend.
> <Revision of Maxwell equations DRAFT.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics



Maurice Daniel
5D at earthlink.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200423/61ebd233/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 88290 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200423/61ebd233/attachment.tiff>