[Physics] Do longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves exist and, if yes, how should they be modelled?

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-01 20:13 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2020-05-01 7:35 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
>> So what?  My bet is that you will never have one.
>
> It's already there since at least 2004, my mistake. Sorry for the confusion:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405062
>
> "Experimental demonstration of a new radiation mechanism: emission by
> an oscillating, accelerated, superluminal polarization current"

The article makes it quite clear that the superluminal current is
essentially a faked one, simply an array of well-coordinated parts.

"By and large, this field remained dormant until Ginzburg and
colleagues [3, 4, 5] pointed out that, though no superluminal source
of electromagnetic fields can be point-like, there are no physical
principles preventing extended faster-than-light sources. The
coordinated motion of aggregates of subluminally-moving charged
particles can give rise to macroscopic polarization currents whose
distribution patterns move superluminally [3, 4, 5]."

This type of "superluminal" is not more problematic for relativity
than the superluminal speed of the image created by a far away
rotating light ray. And the equations they used to describe the
resulting light created by this strange source are:

"The required source explicitly appears in the Ampere-Maxwell
equation, which underlies the emission of electromagnetic radiation
[15, 16]"  With [16] being the standard Russian university textbook:
"[16] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, “Electrodynamics of Continuous
Media” (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975)."

So this is all mainstream Maxwell theory, and you have been confused
by the use of the word "superluminal".

> Maxwell does not predict FTL waves, which have now been conclusively
> proven to exist by experiment and therefore Maxwell's equations have
> to be revised. There's just no way around the obvious.

There is, namely to look into the paper, to find out that the paper
was not about FTL waves, but about faked "superluminal" macroscopic
effects created by well-coordinated subluminal movements of particles.

The following longer consideration makes no sense, it only shows that
you have no equation of motion which could replace the Maxwell
equation. And I'm quite sure you will never have one. Because either
you will not get the Hertzian transversal waves at all, which would be
the most probable result, or something else will go completely wrong,
and this can be seen in a quite simple way once you have written down
some equation.

> So, if
> you take tese fields and figure out how/where these would fit with the
> fields defined for the new model, you are doing something completely
> different as has been done before, without throwing away the equations
> themselves, thus "preserving the equations in some limit" and
> therefore "preserving their predictions in that limit".

Yes. That's what I'm doing. The interpretation, the meaning of the
fields, is something completely different, but the equations remain
the same (at least in some limit). And once the equations are the
same, the predictions based on particular solutions of these equations
will be the same too.

>> First, you need some hypothesis that these fields are somehow
>> connected with the ether fluid. This would be a non-trivial
>> hypothesis, which could fail.
>
> Yep, it could. But if you have a better and more simple explanation
> for the observed superluminal anomalies, I'm all ears.

There are none, see above.

>> So, ok, you have the hypothetical ether fluid, which is described by
>> the ether velocity, and use the Helmholtz theorem to decompose it into
>> two fields.  Then you try to identify the two fields with E and B.
>
> Yep. But bear in mind that the whole decomposition is mathematically
> uniquely defined by:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

You decide to decompose the velocity field in such a way that the
parts E and B fulfill some conditions you like.  Fine. The conditions
are those which are nice for electrostatics. But for electrodynamics,
the identification of your E from the decomposition with the E of the
electric field of Maxwell theory fails. That means, your model fails.
That's all.

> Actually, there's quite a lot of wiggle-room left for improvements,
> without ruining the established experimental support.

No. If you somehow change the Maxwell equations, you destroy them.  Completely.

> On the other hand, you have the simplification of considering the
> medium to be irrotational, which is what's considered to be the
> "static" electric field, which is also considered to propagate at an
> infinite speed, hence the later bolted on "retarded potentials".

As explained, you have the gauge freedom if you choose to consider the
potentials. Because of this there is no well-defined speed of the
potentials. In the Lorenz gauge, you have it, and it will be c.

> Also bear in mind that our current model for electricity is
> essentially limited to the two-wire transmission line, as descibed for
> example by the Telegraphers equations,

No. Of course, everybody is free to consider such two-wire
transmission lines and to compute restrictions of the Maxwell
equations to such devices. But this is an application, not a
limitation.

> Ok, but one can hardly call a repeated observation of one and the same
> phenomenon over a time span of almost two centuries a "single"
> experiment.

Experiments from two centuries ago don't count anyway, far too inaccurate.

>> No. The propagation speed of the electric field is well-defined and c.
>
> Yep, it is defined to be c, but that is incorrect and is not predicted
> by Maxwell's equations, which assume the propagation speed of the
> fields themselves to be infinite.

No.

> Again, the whole "gauge field" idea is nonsense.

No, it is your criticism of gauge field theory which is nonsense.

>> In the case of the Maxwell equations, it would be better for you do
>> start with the physics immediately, in the form related to experiment.
>> E is, last but not least, the electric force, that means, it gives a
>> force on a charged object.
>
> There you already go wrong. Yes, it gives a force on a charged object,
> but no charged particles exist that do not also have a magnetic
> moment. It is that magnetic moment which gives rise to the polarity
> associated with "charge", so if one does not take that into account
> from the start, one is doomed from the very beginning.

Again, it is not a problem at all to get a small ball with some
nontrivial charge but almost zero magnetic field. That the elementary
particles have some magnetic moment is irrelevant because they can
(and usually do) compensate each other so that in the sum you get
almost zero.

> If one really wants to get an idea how the fields actually interact,
> one has to study radio and the history thereof, because that reveals
> the actual relationships between the fields, which is a lot more
> dynamic and complicated and can give rise to much more complicated
> results than just a "Hertzian" wave.

If you like to study complicate fields, do it, it is not forbidden.  I
suggest you to consider the elementary things, where you can
explicitly measure E and B, because this gives you the possibility to
see that all the terms in the Maxwell equation are necessary

>> The near field is also quantized.
>
> Nope, it is not. It's a real transverse surface wave, exactly the same
> as "water" waves, consisting of a combination of vortices and FTL
> longitudinal waves.

It is. Study quantum condensed matter theory, in particular phonons.
To learn that quantum effects with "quantized" particles appear also
in completely real waves.

> How come anomalies have been observed in the near field?

It is more complicate to study it, because of all those reflections
and so on, so that it is natural to expect more anomalies too.

>> >> In the fields which can be measure, E and B, there is no gauge freedom.
>> >> The gauge freedom is only in the potentials.
>> >
>> > Which are also fields.
>>
>> But they are not observable, so different potentials may give the same
>> observable effects.
>
> They cannot give observable effects, because the "gauge freedom" that
> was erroneously introduced to the model by Maxwell does not actually
> exist. It's just total B.S.

It is your criticism which is BS.

>> If you want to restrict yourself to the fields E and B, you will be
>> unable to describe the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

> Which is a fantasy. The electric version has not been experimentally
> verified and the supposed experimental verification for the magnetic
> version is, at best, inconclusive:

So what, if there is a straightforward way to write down an
interaction term with charged particles (Dirac field) which uses a
potential but none using only field strengths?

>> > How obvious can it be?

>> Your "makes no sense" claim is indeed quite obviously wrong.

> Nope, it is correct. A properly defined Helmholtz decompositon by
> means of application of the Laplace operator is uniquely defined and
> therefore there is no room whatsoever for "gauge freedom", nor can
> they lead to any (net) resulting force, because the addition of the
> gauge terms to not change the observed fields.

But your Helmholtz decomposition has no relation to the Maxwell
equations, it is of no value given that the E field in electrodynamics
does not fulfill \nabla x E = 0.

>> Nature is not obliged to make everything observable to human
>> scientists.  So it is not nonsensical at all that there may be
>> different real configurations which we cannot distinguish by
>> observation.

> One can never rule out such a possibility, but gauge fields are
> definitely not a good idea.

They are, they have given the basic idea how to define weak and strong
forces in the SM.

>> Maxwell's theory is a classical theory, thus, not obliged or expected
>> to predict quantum effects correctly.

> Quantum effects are just an illusion, invented to cover up the gaping
> hole in Maxwell's equations as a result of not applying vector
> calculus correctly.

LOL.

>> Ah, you take this quantization with vortices nonsense seriously?
>> Sorry, forget about it.
>
> Yep, there is not much other choice, really. Can't be a real
> transverse surface wave and has to have rotation, since involving a
> magnetic field which is by definition rotational in Nature.

You have obviously no idea at all about quantum theory.  Learn an
elementary course in quantum theory before arguing how to correct it.

>> In those macroscopic things you can buy for $1000 this does not matter
>> at all. You can have a small ball electrically charged, but if it is
>> not magnetized the magnetic field it creates will be negligible.
>
> Could be, but it seems difficult to explain the polarization
> associated with "charge" without magnetism, unless it is caused by
> something akin to "acoustic levitation": standing longitudinal waves.
> After all, the field has to propagate trough the medium at a finiete
> speed and one cannot have "static" sound waves.

Nobody is suggesting you to explain polarization. I suggest you to
understand elementary school=level experiments with charged balls
which move into the direction of the electric force as a way to see
that one can measure E.  And all the playing around with magnets as a
way to see that one can measure B. And once you can measure E and B,
you can vary the B field, say, by moving around a magnet, and see how
this influences the E field.

Once you fail at such a fundamental level that you want to change the
Maxwell equations, I have to start teaching you the very basics.

>> No. The fields E and B we can measure completely.  We cannot measure
>> the potentials A and Phi.
>
> Not directly, no. But if the fields are uniquely defined, their values
> can be uniquely determined.

We can measure them only via the E and B fields.  So, via measurement
we cannot distinguish potentials which give the same E and B fields.

>> > Had Maxwell used the Laplace operator, we would not have had that
>> > problem and we would not have had the whole fantasy land built on top
>> > of the whole "gauge freedom" idea that is totally unwarranted, given
>> > that Maxwell started out from an aetheric paradigm and mechanical
>> > models.
>>
>> But he would have had a problem with the correspondence of his
>> equations with the observable reality, which can be observed by
>> measuring E and B fields.
>
> Nope, would not. See explanation above about the wiggle room in there.

So, you have not only no idea about what is observable from the
electric and magnetic fields, but also refuse to learn elementary
facts. This is already the level where any attempt to explain you your
errors has to be given up.

>> Not only that there exist some such medium (it exists in my ether
>> theory too, which contains also the Maxwell equations),  but also
>> because you propose out of your fantasy a particular identification of
>> the objective measurable fields E and B with some velocity components
>> of your personal ether theory.
>>
>> That means, it is based on an ether theory which can be wrong.
>
> All right, I'll give you that much. Any theory can be wrong.

And if it can be wrong, you don't have a proof that the Maxwell
equations are wrong. You cannot prove something assuming implicitly
that your ether theory is correct.

Your claim should be "If my ether theory is correct, then the Maxwell
equation is wrong". The physicists  answer is "we have checked the
Maxwell equations, they are correct, thus, it follows mathematically
that your ether theory is wrong".

> But do note I'm not saying it IS a fluid. All I'm saying is that it's
> dynamics can be described using continuum mechanics fluid dynamics
> vector theory. In fact, we cannot know what it's really like, because
> all we can meaure involves electromagnetic waves in one way or the
> other.

In electrostatics we can measure everything with waves playing no
role. And one can do electrodynamics quite slowly, say, moving magnets
slowly. This would lead to some waves too, but this plays no role.

> I cannot imagine I made such a claim, you must have misunderstood. If
> you can elaborate on what you are referring to, I might be able to
> explain.

You did not make such a claim, but in your argument about the Maxwell
equation being wrong you simply use claims which come from your ether
theory. Else, there would be no point at all to care about some
Helmholtz decomposition of some vector field.  Where does this vector
field come from?  Who identified the parts of that decomposition with
E and B if you you using your ether theory?

> Particles are experimentally found to be capable of producing
> interference patterns and therefore have some kind of wave character
> besides having a particle character in the sense that they exist in
> the shape of some kind of discrete entity.

If you want to understand interference, learn quantum theory and come
back. It makes no sense to criticize theories one has not even
understood.

>> which are described by very different initial and boundary conditions.
>> Of course, in different situations the same equation will give
>> different solutions.
>
> One resulting wave is found to be quantized, the other not.

No. Learn quantum theory.

>> Wrong, the speed of the electric and magnetic field is c in Maxwell's
>> theory.
>
> Nope, that's AFTER taping over the hole with "retarded potentials".

There is no hole.

> Which includes the knowledge that Maxwell's equations are incorrect in
> their current form, since failing to predict a FTL longitudinal wave,

No, this includes the knowledge of how Maxwell's equations can be
tested, to see why all the terms in these equations are necessary,
includes knowledge of the formulas for E and B from A and Phi, and the
consequence that there is some gauge freedom given that we can
directly measure only E and B, and of all the other elementary EM
theory which has been developed and tested long long ago.

> The propagation speeds of the fields themselves are assumed to be
> infinite within Maxwell's equations.

Nonsense.

> They also paint over the fact that the actual propagation speeds do
> not follow from three wave equations describing the three distintcly
> different wave phenomena observed in practice and the one for the
> electric field is off by a factor of over 1.5.

First, learn elementary electrodynamics before writing such nonsense.

> There is a difference between "static" and "steady state".

Fine, something where you are correct.