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

[Arend Lammertink]

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:18 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2020-05-03 3:50 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 9:04 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. If your intuition is not guided by hard data, you have no chance.
> >
> > Yep, agree to that.
> >
> > In that sense, it is rather interesting how one considers David
> > LaPoint's video, which I like a lot:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk
> >
> > What I see is that people tend to reject the experiments that are
> > being shown, because they don't like LaPoint's theory and claims he
> > makes besides showing his experiments. To me, the experiments
> > themselves are hard data, because I have no reason to believe he faked
> > things.
>
> Look at it from the other side: The costs of evaluating this, vs. the
> probability that this gives something. I'm a theoretician. Starting
> experimental physics would require a completely new education. It
> would require joining a completely different community because one
> cannot do experiments alone today.

The job of a theoretician is to build a quantifyable model that is
capable of explaining and predicting things that can be observed
and/or measured in a laboratory or somewhere out there in the real
world. And in order to be able to do so, one needs a number of
fundamental ideas about how it all might work.

Currently, those fundamental ideas are (partly) based on the idea that
there are four fundamental interactions of Nature, which need to be
described by four independent fields.

The alternative view is that there is only one fundamental interaction
of Nature, which can be described with a single, fluid dynamics based
aether model. In order to be able to accept the possibility such a
model may be viable, one needs to have a fundamental idea about how
that might work. And from that perspective, the experiments by LaPoint
show that it is at the very least conceivable that the strong and weak
nuclear forces can be described within the electromagnetic domain.

Once you have accepted this at least as a possibility, being a
theoretician, you can begin the process of evaluating theoretically
whether or not this possibility is viable and perhaps even probable.

In other words: as long as one outright rejects the possibility, one
cannot begin the process of reasoning about whether or not this
possibility makes sense. It is the opening up of the mind for the
possibility rather than having to repeat a certain experiment to see
for yourself is the most important step a theoretican can make. And
watching a video doesn't even cost a dime, so there's not much to
loose but some of one's time.

> The exception are extreme outsiders
> who hope to reach something with $1000 investments in hardware for
> experiments. No, sorry.

I'm somewhat in the middle between a theoretician and an experimenter,
although I consider myself more of a theoretician than an
experimenter. I do as little experiments as possible, because I'm not
very good at them, but good enough do things like measuring the
wavelength of an emitted radio wave, perform time domain reflectometry
and things like that when I feel I need to.

Also bear in mind that the amount of processing power that is
available today for next to nothing, costed multitudes of that just a
couple of years ago. A device like a cellphone these days has more
processing power than the fastest supercomputers from a decade or two
ago.

This revolution also expresses itself in the price of advanced
measuring equipment, such as a VNA, a vector network analyser. As
little as ten years ago, one could not obtain such a device even on
the second hand market under $10.000,- or so. In other words: don't
underestimate how sophisticated and powerfull a $100 nanoVNA really
is. Sure, one cannot expect such a cheap device to be as good as a
$50.000 professional device, but when one compares their performance,
a nanoVNA is not bad at all:

https://nuclearrambo.com/wordpress/comparing-nanovna-with-the-keysight-fieldfox-n9952a/
"Verdict

Apart from a few errors here and there, the nanoVNA appears to perform
very well. As they say, "Something is better than nothing". The
nanoVNA is something to give us a rough idea about our antennas, be it
RF filters or something else. There are many things that could improve
in the nanoVNA circuit. For example, the Si5351 could be replaced with
a better performing wide band PLL. The RF circuitry could be better
shielded to improve the dynamic range and reduce high-frequency
errors. The list goes on and with the list, so does the cost. We can't
have it all. So, we all have to settle somewhere and I prefer to
settle with the $60 nanoVNA than a $50,000 FieldFox."

>
> Of course, I have to make bets here, and my bet is to believe that the
> mainstream experimenters do their job, and outsiders with $1000
> equipment fail.

You appear to be missing the point that all a theoretican needs in
order to verify the correctness of the fundamental ideas behind his
theory is the availability of a sufficient amount of data to guide
one's thinking. In fact, it happened many times in the past that
theoretical ideas were described within a model years before they
could be experimentally verified.

All a theoretican really needs are the fundamental ideas and in fact
these do not require any data at all.

It's just very nice if one is able to experimentally verify the most
easilly verifiable prediction that differentiates one's model from
competing models, namely the prediction of the existence of a FTL
longitudinal wave. Obviously, experiments in that direction would be
guided by the theoritical understanding of it's predicted
characteristics as well as by the analysis of historical experiments
that appear to have already detected said FTL longitudinal wave from
the viewpoint of this theoretical understanding.

So, there is a feedback loop between theory and experimental
verification, which rarely come together in one person. I consider
myself somewhere in the middle between a theoretical physicist and an
experimenter.  Not good enough to be either, but just good enough at
both aspects to be able to bridge the gap between the two at the exact
sweet spot where the current model breaks down: the electromagnetic
domain.

>
> > I consider it actual recordings from actual experiments until
> > someone comes up with a good argument explaining why they are likely
> > to be fake.
>
> Fake it a harsh word. It requires bad intentions. The most probably
> problem is honest failure. Many things can go wrong in experiments.
> You have cheap devices, no team which does a lot of cross-checks,
> thus, expect a lot of unrecognized systematic errors.

When you consider what it really is what you are looking at with this
particular example, someone performing an experiment, there cannot be
any failure, unless bad intentions played a role.

What you see is what happened when that guy performed that particular
experiment in those particular circumstances at the time the recording
was made.

Sure, many things can go wrong with experiments and one has to be
careful, but this particular experiment was not quantitative, it just
showed some interesting effects, including the forming of ordered
pattern formations by steel balls under the influence of a magnetic
field in a particular configuration.

Did the steel balls fail to adhere to the laws of Nature?  Highly unlikely.

So, what reason could there be to assume that it is impossible that
electromagnetic forces could possibly account for the maintenance of
order and stability within an atom nucleus?

On what ground could one reject this possibility, other than "because
the main stream says so"?

>
> > So, I've got my hands on one of these a while ago and want to
> > experiment with it, kind of like repeating what Wheatstone did, in
> > order to see what I can find out. Is there something there that has
> > been overlooked by main stream science?
>
> Maybe. But not very probable. It would require extreme luck to make
> the correct guess where the mainstream failed, and, moreover, extreme
> luck that the failure is so large that you can see it even with $1000
> equipment, but they fail to see it with $billion equipment. Not
> impossible - they may simply look at the wrong places. But very
> improbable.

The point is: my experiments are guided by theoretical insights and
considerations and are aimed at performing the most simple experiments
that could verify the most easily verifiable distuingishment between
our "theory" and the main stream theory: the existence of a FTL
longitudinal wave which is one and the same phenomena as we know as
the "electric field".

And it's much more than a guess, from my point of view, because of a
number of reasons:

1) The longitudinal wave has a fundamentally different character than
the familiar transverse wave. Without understanding the basic physics
behind this, it's next to impossible to create this kind of wave. As
an analogy: imagine we are familiar with gyroscopes only and
understand how these behave. Imagine what it would take to build
something whereby a mass translates rather than rotates, if all you've
ever known are rotating objects. May sound far fetched, but that's
actually a pretty good analogy of what we're talking about.

2) The longitudinal FTL wave is not predicted by Maxwell's equations.
So even when FTL waves are being observed, like the so called
"precursors", people try to work with Maxwell's equations in order to
find an explanation. Problem is that this is a translationally
vibrating wave, which is completely incompatible with Maxwell's
equations, because these can only deal with rotational waves, even
though the actual "transverse" surface wave is a combination of both a
longitudinal and a rotational wave. And this is because of the
inclusion of Faraday's law at the wrong place in the model. In other
words: it's next to impossible to explain such a phenomena because of
a) Maxwell and b) relativity. This makes the chance that the main
stream overlooked this possibility a lot closer to 1 as one would
think if one were to consider Maxwell's equations to be absolutely
correct and untouchable.

3) The most direct testable, distinguishing idea that comes out of our
"theory", the existence of FTL longitudinal waves, is supported by
quite a number of sources that report the observation of FTL phenomena
over a vast amount of time and concerning a number of otherwise
completely unrelated phenomena, like for example anomalies around
optical fibres, anomalies around the microwave "near field", Charles
Wheatstone and Nikola Tesla.

So, that's why I think I have a very good chance, especially because
Wheatstone appears to have already succeeded in 1834.

In other words: I'm not just guessing and trying to look for a needle
in a haystack, I'm using guidance from both theory as well as
historical data that appears to have been succesfull already. The
reason I've bought a mercury relay is not a guess, it follows from
analysing Wheatstone's experiment (spark gaps) and combining the
characteristics of spark gaps (fast switching) with what I read
elsewhere in relation to those "precursors" about which it is being
said need very fast switching in order to achieve as well as the
theoretical consideration of the single wire distributed series LC
model in comparison to the two-wire distributed parallel LC model.

I also do not perform an experiment until I have an idea worth
checking out. Last time I did an experiment with time domain
reflection, I had the impression that the impedance of a single wire
transmission line would be about 240 Ohm, which number came about
after studying Elmore's paper about his non-radiating guided surface
wave, which propagates at c, and is therefore a "transverse" wave and
not a longitudinal one as he assumes:

http://www.corridor.biz/FullArticle.pdf

So, I used his formula to calculate what I would expect the impedance
to be for a FTL wave to be, by correcting for a propagation factor of
pi/2 times as fast and came out at about 240 Ohm, quite a lot more
than the standard 50 Ohm coaxial transmission line and quite a lot
less than his 377 Ohm, which matches the "transverse" impedance of
free space. So, I experimented with that and indeed observed part of
the signal arriving early after some tweaking, but I was clearly still
doing something wrong.

Just this morning, I realized that Wheatstone terminated his wires
with a small sphere, to form the spark gap, and he had a balanced
configuration and I remembered from the many simulations I did that a
sphere appears to act like a reflector rather than a radiator. In this
picture, it is shown what one can expect to see with TDR, depending on
how one terminates one's transmission line:

https://www.epanorama.net/circuits/TDR_fig7.gif

So, now I have a real question worth checking out: what happens if I
add a capacative termination at the end of the transmission line in
the shape of a metal sphere?

Don't know the answer yet, but well worth the time to try and find out.


> >> Today, Einstein would probably accept a hidden preferred frame, simply
> >> because the alternative, to give up realism and causality, would be
> >> completely unacceptable to him.
> >
> > Could be. Would he also accept and perhaps even prefer an aether
> > theory based on fundamental ideas and a correction of Maxwell's
> > equations?
>
> Certainly not. Don't forget, Einstein has never rejected neither the
> equations of quantum theory nor the experimental predictions based on
> it.

I think he would also like Occam's razor.

> >> You have, first, to learn elementary electrodynamics. On the
> >> elementary school level. Starting with what is observable - the fields
> >> E and B - and what can be used to measure them.
> >
> > Are you aware I hold a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering from
> > the University of Twente?
>
> Given what you have written in the past, I have got a quite different
> impression, sorry.  But given the content of this post, it looks
> already more plausible.

Completely understandable if you are under the impression that the E
and B fields can easily be measured in great detail and that
everything electromagnetic is settled in stone.

>
> >> Once you have accepted that one can simply measure E and B, then you
> >> should understand that to distinguish the theory without the dB/dt
> >> term from the Maxwell theory can be done in a quite elementary way, by
> >> creating some variable magnetic field (simply a rotating magnet) and
> >> measuring the E field. And that the result of such measurements was
> >> quite clear, and in favor of the Maxwell equations.
>
> > As I stated before, at high frequencies things become a bit harder to
> > measure, because then one has to deal with waves and the analogy that
> > works well at low frequencies, essentially considering electricity
> > similar as water/oil flowing trough pipes, no longer holds.
>
> So what?  I suggest you to test the Maxwell equations for low
> frequencies. Because if you simply remove the dB/dt term, you will
> fail at low frequencies too.

There's no point in repeating experiments and expecting different
results, unless you smell something really fishy. When you perform an
experiment, you have to do something significantly different from what
has already been done before, otherwise one is completely wasting
one's time.

>
> > So, perhaps one of the most important things one learns is that there
> > is no such thing as a "simple measurement" in Electrical Engineering.
> > Sure, there are accurate meters for all kinds of parameters these
> > days, but they all have their limits and one has to be aware of those
> > limits in order to use them properly.
>
> Fine. This is the part you have to know much better than me if the
> university of Twente is worth to be named a university.
>
> My point is that simply removing the dB/dt term is completely off, and
> this will be obvious even at a very rough level for low frequencies.
> So, you can easily falsify the theory without the dB/dt term.   (Which
> is the part I thought should be obvious for somebody with Master
> degree in Electrical Engineering, but this may be, indeed, a fallacy,
> what is obvious for me with a completely different education may be
> far from obvious for you.)

What is clear is that the term dB/dt is what differentiates Maxwell
from LaPlace / Helmholtz.

So, when you remove it, you must also take the next step and
fundamentally consider the aether to behave like a fluid and consider
the consequences of taking that step.

>
> > However, at the end of the day, there is no argument that Maxwell's
> > equations predict the behavior of the fields very well insofar as
> > applicable(!!).
>
> > However, note the "insofar as applicable", which is an important detail.
>
> But once we have a domain where the Maxwell equations are applicable,
> then some more general equations should have the Maxwell equations as
> their limit in the case when they are applicable.

Yes, no doubt about that. Doesn't have to be a 'limit' per se, though.

>
> Roughly, you are free to add something, but only if you can show that
> what you add becomes irrelevant in the limit where the Maxwell
> equations are applicable.
>
> > So, what does this experiment really tell us?
>
> > It tells us that at low frequencies, a changing magnetic field induces
> > a current in a closed loop electric circuit.
>
> And a current through a loop is nothing you can create with a \nabla
> \times \mathbf {E} = 0 field. So, \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 is
> empirically falsified if there is a changing magnetic field.

Ok, now we come to the two million dollar questions:

*) what IS a current?
*) what IS charge?

>
> > So, the question is: is this really the only possible relationship
> > between the electric field and the magnetic field?
>
> There will be, of course, a lot of other imaginable equations. But
> \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0  is not among them.  Because it cannot
> create a current through a loop.

Once we have taken the step of removing the term dB/dt and switched
over to the FD domain, we are left without Faraday's law and we've
lost the concept of "charge". In return, we now got a model wherein we
consider the medium to behave like a fluid and therefore we can use
analogies to analyze what we are dealing with.

So, let's consider a permanent magnet and a wire loop around it.

A permanent magnet would create a vortex in the aether, so if a loop
of wire would be placed within such a vortex, one would expect a
current to start flowing trough the wire, yet we do not measure a
current in that situation. Why is that?

When we replace the permanent magnet with a coil, so we can create a
changing magnetic field, we do measure a current. Why is that?

What role do electrons play in this game?

What are electrons? How could we describe them and what consequences
would that have?

Now let's pull in another fundamental idea: the electron can be
modelled as a single vortex ring, as proposed by Stowe. From this
idea, it follows that "charge" is the result of a
compression/decompression oscillation of such a vortex ring, which
would show itself in the shape of a longitudinal "sound" wave with a
frequency equal to the characteristic frequency of such a particle,
which, according to Stowe, is given by:

f = q/m  (eq. 25 in https://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf )

If that is correct, we would not have polarized "charges", so the
polarization would  be due to magnetics and not be a dielectric
effect.

Now let's draw in this reference and note the following:
https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1988-308-01/S0002-9947-1988-0946444-X/S0002-9947-1988-0946444-X.pdf

"A vortex ring is said to be steady if it moves without change of
shape and propagates at a constant speed along its axis of symmetry. "


Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much further than that. If Stowe is
correct, we have answered only one of the two million dollar
questions. The other one still needs to be answered, along with the
question of why we only *measure* a current in the case we are dealing
with a changing magnetic field.

My reasoning is that this has to do with the known fact that a steady
vortex ring, which we would assume the electron to be, propagates in a
particular direction with respect to it's axis of symmetry. So, if we
may assume that at low frequencies the "current" is mainly carried by
electrons moving trough a wire, one is tempted to conclude that in the
steady state ("static") case some kind of balance is established, such
that no (net) movement of electrons trough the wire remains.

Now let's look at an inductor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor
"An electric current flowing through a conductor generates a magnetic
field surrounding it. The magnetic flux linkage  generated by a given
current  depends on the geometric shape of the circuit. Their ratio
defines the inductance . Thus

L = Phi_B / I   "

Where Phi_B denotes the magnetic flux:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux

"In physics, specifically electromagnetism, the magnetic flux (often
denoted Φ or ΦB) through a surface is the surface integral of the
normal component of the magnetic field flux density B passing through
that surface."

Continueing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor#Constitutive_equation :

"Any change in the current through an inductor creates a changing
flux, inducing a voltage across the inductor. By Faraday's law of
induction, the voltage induced by any change in magnetic flux through
the circuit is given by[5]

V = -d Phi_B / dt.

Reformulating the definition of  above, we obtain[5]

Phi_B = LI.

It follows, that

V = -dPhi_b / dt = -d/dt (LI) = -L dI / dt.

for L  independent of time.

So inductance is also a measure of the amount of electromotive force
(voltage) generated for a given rate of change of current."

One can rewrite the second equation as:

I = Phi_B / L

Which makes clear that there is a linear relation between current
trough a loop and the magnetic flux enclosed by that loop.

Now when we think of an analogy of a rotating flywheel, we have
something very similar. When we want to store energy in it, we will
have to apply a force, and when we want to extract energy, we convert
some of the rotational momentum into a force.


So, the question is: is it really the changing magnetic field that is
"inducing a voltage across the inductor"  or is that "induced" voltage
actually caused by the ohmic resistance of the loop wire? And what
role does the "parasitic" capacitance between coil windings play?

Another point is also interesting. When one connects a coil to a
Voltage source, such as a battery, the current will climb until a
certain steady state maximum is reached. In that situation, there is
no change in current and therefore no change in magnetic flux. So all
the energy that is provided by the Voltage source to keep the current
going is dissipated because of ohmic resistance of the coil wire.

This begs the question: what is the difference in electron movements
(measurable current) in this situation (external voltage source to
overcome ohmic resistance) compared to the placement of a loop in the
field of a permanent magnet?

If we can answer this question, we've solved another mystery.

In relation to the question "what IS current", the following in
Elmore's article is rather interesting:

http://www.corridor.biz/FullArticle.pdf
"In coax, as the geometry b/a increases, the impedance of the TEM_00
mode increases logarithmically and the real current density, J, tends
toward zero"

This shows that this non-radiating real transverse surface wave Elmore
has shown to exist and also applies commercially, does not induce a
*real* current in the wire that guides this wave and that is the
reason this type of wave hardly attenuates and can be used over
considerable distances.

It is also rather interesting that in his derivation, he starts with
the Telegraphers equations, the consideration of a transmission line
as a distributed parallel LC circuit, which results in the impedance
going to infinity when the return path goes to infinity (b/a). The
impedance is calculated by application of Ampere's law and Gauss law
in order to calculate the inductance per unit length and the
capacitance per unit length. So, in this case Maxwell's equations
predict an infinite impedance, while in reality Elmore found an
impedance equal to that of free space of 377 Ohms.

And herewith it is shown that Maxwell's equations do not correctly
predict the behavior of a single wire transmission line. Rather than
predicting the actual value, we obtain a singularity.

Note that Elmore speaks about a non-zero longitudinal component:

"The solution to the wave equation for the propagating TM mode
produces a non­ zero longitudinal component of the E­-field. This is
in contrast to the solution for the TEM mode in coax which produces
only a transverse E­ field.

Whereas the TEM mode is excited by real current, the TM wave is
excited by the displacement current."

Previously, I've misinterpreted this as implying TM_LE mode, but that
is not what he actually says. What he says that in the mode he
utilizes, there is a mixture of transverse and longitudinal components
for the E-field, which would be in violation of the mentioned term
dB/dt, since the curl operator results in a vector perpendicular to
dB/dt and therefore perpendicular to B.

In other words: here we have experimental evidence as well that
equating curl E to -dB/dt is problematic and leads to incorrect
predictions in certain particular situations, overlooked by the main
stream, yet demonstrated to be real in practice.

It is rather interesting from a theoretical perspective that Elmore's
TM mode, which is still magnetic and therefore not a FTL longitudinal
wave, exactly highlights the limit of what can be done with Maxwell's
equations. Maxwell definately begins to break down for the analysis of
this single-wire transmission line, but with a bit of work arounds,
one can still analyse the phenomenon.

It is also interesting to consider the difference between Elmore's
E-line concept and the much older Goubau line: the presence of a
(thin) layer of a dielectric (insulating) material around the
conductor. This situation can be analysed much easier, because you
don't run into problems with integrations going to infinity as you do
when you consider a situation without a dielectric layer.

>
> > When you remove the term dB/dt from Maxwell's equations, you are left
> > with nothing but fluid dynamics and one obtains a more fundamental
> > relationship between the [E] and [B] fields that includes a transverse
> > surface wave as predicted by Maxwell, but also a longitudinal "sound"
> > wave as well as vortices.
>
> By simply removing the dB/dt term you kill the transverse waves too,
> but that's not the point, because we can restrict ourselves to the
> much simpler Faraday experiment to get my point.  \nabla \times
> \mathbf {E} = 0  is dead because a force which has a potential cannot
> give a current in a loop.

The idea is that a *rotating* magnetic field, a vortex, can drag along
electrons trough a wire and can thus result in a current in a loop.
However, the fact that this does not happen with a "steady state"
("static") magnetic field, as caused by a permanent magnet, must be
explained in another manner, otherwise we have a problem.

So, the idea is that the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange
between a rotating magnetic field and a loop of wire is the transfer
of rotational momentum from the magnetic field (vortex) to the
(electrons within) the wire loop.  Somehow, this results in a reaction
from the electrons within the wire, such that after a short period of
time a steady state situation results whereby no net movement of
electrons remains and thus no measurable current.

>
> >> Physicists simply rely on the facts which can be easily measured.
> >
> > In the measurements of electromagnetic phenomena, the devil is in the
> > details.
>
> Once you have not questioned the low frequency experiments, these
> details become irrelevant.

There is a significant difference between questioning the experiments
and questioning the theory.

I question the latter.

>
> > Yes, it is a fact that Maxwell's equations predict the results of what
> > we are currently able to measure within the electromagnetic domain
> > well, even very well.
> >
> > But it is also a fact that other possibilities are conceivable and
> > that a number of anomalies exist whereby it is observed that even
> > Maxwell's equations have their limits.
">
> We can agree that there are other possibilities. But once we have a
> domain where the Maxwell equations work well, these other
> possibilities are already quite restricted, namely, the modified
> equation has to predict, within the accuracy which was tested, the
> predictions of Maxwell theory.

Yep, definitately has to. And it also has to explain a number of anomalies.

So, basically the existing equations can be re-arranged in order to
create room for the possibility that there may be FTL longitudinal
waves, but the current predictions may not be broken, except in those
cases where we have "anomalies".

However, the interpretation of what is exactly going on with existing
experiments may change significantly in a number of cases, most
notably the experiments around Faraday's law.

For instance, the notion that "charge" itself is not polarized leads
to considerable difference in the interpretation of certain
experiments, but because the vast majority of experiments rely on
potential differentials rather than polarity, this is not necessarily
of great concern.

>
> The same as Einstein had to do with GR - to show that the GR equations
> have a Newtonian limit.

Yep, something like that, but it does not necessarily have to involve a limit.

In this case, it's more like showing that besides the rotational and
"transverse" nature of electricity and associated waves, there is also
a translational type of electricity with associated longitudinal wave.
So, it's more like restoring the natural (and mathematical) separation
into a rotational, incompressible component and a irrotational,
compressible component than that we get an equation which reduces to
the previous equation in some kind of limit, as is the case with
Newton/Einstein.

As is known from the "water" wave, these two components meet in the
transverse surface wave, so that one has to remain intact in one way
or the other. Otherwise, we are doing something really wrong.

>
> >> Then
> >> I accept that the potentials are the things which describe reality,
> >> even if I can measure only E and B but not A and Phi.
> >
> > Agree so far, but bear in mind that measuring E and B is a lot more
> > complicated than you may think,
>
> As long as there is a domain where the Maxwell equations hold, so that
> a theory which replaces Maxwell has to recover the Maxwell equations
> in some limit, fine.

Yep, totally agree.

In essence, when one compares Maxwell's equations to LaPlace /
Helmholtz, the two halves of the natural decomposition have been
joined at the hip by the dB/dt term. Loosening this joint has as a
consequence that this joint must be re-established in some other way
within some limit. That would be the FD wave equation for the
transverse surface wave, the one which propagates along our antennas
and thus describes the "near" field as well as the borderline case
drawn up by Elmore.

That indeed leaves a hole around "what is Faraday's law?" and the two
million dollar questions, and we also need to explain why the far
field has been found to be quantized.

>
> >> But I can make
> >> a reasonable guess about their equations, and this reasonable guess is
> >> they all move with the same c, which is the Lorenz gauge.
> >
> > All right, now let's consider carefully what we are dealing with. What
> > we have is a bunch of differential equations and one wave equation. In
> > differential equations, you work with distances that are taken to the
> > limit of zero. That is why the propagation speed of the fields
> > themselves can be assumed to be infinite or any value one would like,
> > because the progation speed of the phenomenon you are describing
> > follows from the solution of the differential equation.  In other
> > words: the propagation speed of the wave is an output from the
> > differential equation and not an input.
> >
> > Since we only have one wave equation which describes an otherwise
> > unspecified "transverse" wave, we obviously do not have enough wave
> > equations to be able to predict the propagation speed of the "static"
> > fields [E] and [B].
>
> We have some domain of applicability of the Maxwell equations which
> includes some non-static fields.

The two "static" fields we currently have can be related to these two
FD phenomena:

1) the B-field : a steady state vortex;

2) the E-field: steady state "sound" pressure emitted by "charge
carriers", characterized by the two characteristic frequencies of the
two elemental "charged particles", the electron and the proton. The
(net) intensity of the emitted sound waves is linear dependent on the
number of "excess" electrons. The energy required for transmitting
these waves is distributed by means of Huygens' principle, namely
because these particles have a characteristic frequency, they both
receive as well as transmit these waves equally well. That principle
also gives us a handle to eventually "connect our machinery to the
very wheelwork of Nature", but that's another story alltogether.

The non-static behavior implies wave mechanics, whereby the FD
transverse surface wave is essentially exactly equal to what Maxwell's
equations really describe and what Elmore actually uses and shows to
have a zero "real" current. When evaluated on a computer using FTDT
methods, one obtains an accurate picture of the "near" field, so that
aligns for the full 100% to this "transverse" wave equation that can
be derived from Maxwell if we make sure the FD transverse wave matches
exactly over "the" EM wave equation.

The "far" field is not actually predicted by Maxwell's equations. In
simulator software, the "far" field is computed as a post-processing
step, whereby the E and B fields that have been computed within a
certain boundary box are taken and some kind of transformation is
applied in order to compute the "far" field. So, that offers some
guidance to get all that correct as well.


>
> > So, yes, one can take a guess and guess it's all c, which is indeed
> > the Lorentz gauge.
>
> The gauge should be spelled Lorenz gauge.

You're right!  I always thought it was the same guy who also invented
the Lorentz transform. Oops.


> >>
> >> If we cooperate, you can tell me which parts of my pages you can
> >> understand and which not, I could try to improve them. Then, if you
> >> have, as a result of this, some pages which you understand well
> >> enough, then you can try to some scientists in forums or so and ask
> >> them those "what's wrong" questions pointing to these pages.
>
> > I've taken a quick look at some of your papers and started reading this
> > one:
> >
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591
> >
> > Honestly, this is way above my head.
>
> Try the websites.
>
> https://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ is about the SM,
> https://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/ is about the theory of gravity, with
> https://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/FAQ.php intended for laymen, and I
> think there is a lot of place for improvements.

Will take a look later. My expertise is the electromagnetic domain,
which is the main subject of my research.

Of course, I must consider gravity as well as the nuclear forces to
some extend as well, but for my research it is sufficient to consider
LaPoint's experiments to establish that the nuclear forces are not
really necessary for explaining what goes on within an atom and can in
principle be replaced with an improved model for the electromagnetic
domain and to consider that multiple gravitational models exist that
strongly suggest that the gravitational force on the surface of a
planet can be explained by a "pushing" force caused by some kind of
flux (like the thusfar undescribed FTL longitudinal wave) if it is
assumed this flux is attenuated by a large (planetary) body. From
LaPoint's experiments, one can also establish that it is very likely
that the electromagnetic domain plays a significant role in cosmology
as well and because this is currently not being taken into account,
there's a whole can of worms left that would need to be sorted out if
our "theory" were to be worked out in detail and experimental
verification for the FTL wave could be established.

Bottomline is: when you revise Maxwell's equations, everything changes
within theoretical physics. And all one can do at this moment is
conclude that there does not seem to be a reason to assume our
"theory" could not eventually lead to that "Theory of Everything"
every physicist dreams of.

>
> > I agree with the principle, but in practice measuring E and B is a lot
> > more difficult and limited than in theory.
>
> Ok, you have in fact already acknowledged that there is a domain where
> the Maxwell equations are fine (low frequency).

Well, "fine" is not the right word, since Maxwell's description
depends on the arbitrary introduction of the concept of "charge" as
the fundamental cause for the fields to exist.

As long as you restrict yourself to closed loop circuits and
"transverse" waves, they predict the correct results and this has a
consequence for at what frequencies the model breaks down, but because
frequency and wavelength are related, there is a scale aspect as well.
This is easiest to illustrate along the Telegraphers' equations model.

The transverse half of the model, which is predicted correctly by
Maxwell, can be represented as a distributed parallel LC network,
whereby you have the L, the inductance (representing the magnetic
field), as the element which closes the loop. So, this half of the
model has a solution that extends all the way down to 0 Hz, there is a
DC solution as well.

The longitudinal part of the model, which is not predicted by Maxwell,
can be represented similarly as a distributed series LC network,
whereby there is no closed loop. In this half of the model, you have a
capacitance in your signal path and that is why there is no DC
solution, it can only be a wave.

So, when you consider wavelengths in relation to frequency, the scale
factor kicks in. At 10 kHz, for example, you have a wavelength of
(pi/2) times 30 km. So at the scale of a typical experiment, there is
absolutely no way to detect any trace of the longitudinal half of the
model at low frequencies, that is: harmonic low frequencies.

We see this when we look back at two historic detections of FTL
longitiudinal phenomena:

1) Wheatstone. Because he used spark gaps as switching elements in his
circuit, this is not really a low frequency device from a signal
analysis perspective, even though the signal repetition had a rather
low frequency. The closing of the spark gap goes very fast and
therefore the resulting signal has a very high bandwidth, which
enables the possibility of creating and detecting a FTL longitudinal
wave. This is why this experiment is so interesting, it has just the
right elements that make it quite likely he actually measured the
propagation speed of a FTL longitudinal wave and actually measured it
within 2% of the correct value with virtually nothing but a bunch of
wires, a Leyden jar, three spark gaps and a rotating mirror.

2) Tesla. Because he used high power and established a resonant
condition whereby the waves would propagate around the planet, he was
literally working on a planetary scale with his TMT.

So, in general one can indeed say Maxwell is "fine" at low
frequencies, but as always the devil is in the details.


> My point this time is
> would be to clarify that this includes all the terms, and in
> particular the dB/dt too. And given that you have introduced here the
> Faraday experiment, I think it is already sufficient to make this
> point.
>
> Faraday says if there is some  dB/dt then this gives some electric
> current through a loop. A current through a loop is something which
> cannot be created by an electric field with \nabla \times \mathbf {E}
> = 0.

The idea is that a current can be created by a magnetic field and that
the voltage, which has been interpreted by Maxwell as being associated
with the electric field, is not caused by an external electric field,
but is the result of ohmic resistance of the wire and/or the load.

>

> The empirical falsification of \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 would be
> my first point, and the acknowledgement that the full equations have
> to have some natural limit (say low frequency or whatever) where they
> give the Maxwell equations would be even better.

 The empircal "falsification" is due to an improper association
between an assumed external electric field to an effect that is simply
caused by ohmic resistance.

By restoring the natural and mathematical decomposition to their
proper relationships, one creates the possibilities for mathematical
analysis of the single wire transmission line to include the FTL
longitudinal mode while at the same time resolving the singularites
Elmore ran into with the borderline case.

The two-wire transmission line concept remains exactly as it was
before, except at the limits where we find those "anomalies" such as
around the microwave near field.

Conceptually, this can be established by moving "the" wave equation to
another place within the model and adding a "sound" wave equation as
well as some new wave equation that predicts a quantized far field,
based on the consideration that some kind of vortex is implied to play
a role, because it has a magnetic component and therefore *must*
include something that rotates.

>
> >> > “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> >> > ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
> >>
> >> Which is what I have tried many years now. But without fighting, the
> >> method chosen by the mainstream - complete ignorance - will win
> >> without a fight.
> >
> > Well, if we could cooperate, things may change for the better.
>
> Yes, this would be my hope.

Well, if there is an intention, there is a way. (Rough translation of
the Dutch saying: "waar een wil is, is een weg")

>
> The way Maxwell has written the equations for the A \Phi, which is
> described today as the Coulomb gauge, is indeed not nice. The Lorenz
> gauge is much better.

The point is that LaPlace / Helmholtz describe the proper relations
between the four fields E,B,A and Phi at a fundamental level, in such
a way that it not only removes "gauge freedom" but also has a
fundamental symmetry which thus does not need to be re-established
afterwards by the application of some kind of gauge.

> The wishes to interpret both E and B as velocity fields I will ignore.
> Because these are things which may not work, and if they don't work,
> this does not justify any criticism of the original equations, because
> it will be the fault of your hopes for an ether theory.

The current units of measurement are actually quite arbitrary, because
of the introduction of the concept of "charge" as the fundamental
cause for the fields to exist. If we assume charge to indeed be caused
by a longitudinal compression/decompression oscillation of a "charged"
particle, with a frequency given by:



f = q/m

we can work out a unit of measurent for q by first rewriting to:

q = f * m

which results in [Hz] * [kg] =  [/s] * [kg]  = [kg/s], which we can
then equate to the Coulomb [C].

The electric field is defined by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field#Definition

E = 1/(4 pi eps_o)  q / (x1 - x0)^2

Now eps_0 has a unit of measurement in [C^2 / m^2 N], which would
become: [ kg^2/s^2  / m [kg m / s^2] ] = [ kg / m^3 ]

So, for E we would obtain a unit of measurement in  [  [m^3 / kg]  *
[kg/s] / [m^2] ] = [m/s]


However, for the B fields things are not as clear cut, but in order
for LaPlace / Helmholtz to be applicable the units of measurement for
E and B as well as Phi and A must match.  By a similar kind of
exercise for the B field, Stowe came to B being without dimension,
which points in the direction that we really need to think deeply
about the question: what IS a current?

>
> > You can measure a scalar impression of the fields on a number of
> > "points", yes, and one can relate those to the theory and as long as
> > one stays within the "transverse" world, those impressions match with
> > what the theory predicts. The only way I know of to get 3D plots of
> > the fields themselves is by using simulators, which do work really
> > well.  Did quite a lot of simulations with CST Microwave studio and so
> > far, the simulator predicted the radiation patterns of the antenna
> > designs I actually built correctly.
>
> But so what?  Such simulations are a nice way to obtain the empirical
> predictions. And you can test them even if you can measure in a single
> experiment only the E field at a single point. Once the simulation
> predicts something well-defined for this point, this is already an
> empirical test of the equations.

Yes, there is no question the "transverse" part of the Helmholtz
decompositon as essentially described by Maxwell works out extremely
well, so there's no question the predictions derived from this part of
the decomposition describe reality well as long as one remains within
the two-wire transmission line paradigm.

Where it breaks down is when one moves over to it's single wire
transmission line counterpart, as illustrated by Elmore's boundary
case as well as several anomalies around observation of FTL signals,
of which Wheatsone is one of the most interesting ones, because that
one can be used as a guide for additional experimentation using TDR
methods.

>
> To see that \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 fails it is sufficient to
> find some loop so that the E field points, say, in clockwise direction
> along the whole loop. Then you can either repeat Faraday who has found
> a current created along the loop, or do several experiments measuring
> the E field only at one point but checking that the direction is
> always the same clockwise direction.

This relation is actually incorrect. See Elmore.

The reason the dB/dt term works out so well in practice is because it
directly leads to a single wave equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation#The_origin_of_the_electromagnetic_wave_equation

This single wave equation predicts a propagation speed, c, which
happens to match both the "near" as well as the "far" fields and
therefore covers all of wave phenomena associated with the
"transverse" half of the decompositon.

But one can hardly maintain it's satisfying to have two distinctly
different wave phenomena and only one wave equation, which does not
actually match with observations, because the far field is found to be
quantized and this wave equation describes a continuous wave.


> Of course, if you follow this prescription, you have to be able to
> repeat the experiment sufficiently accurate, so it has to be low
> frequency with your accessible devices and so on. On the other hand,
> you need not much, because to falsify  \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0
> you don't need much current flowing around the loop, any current is
> sufficient, because a force with a potential cannot create a current
> in a loop.

The problem is not with the experiments, the problem is with the theory.

>
> If you want to avoid the use of any closed loop of wires, no problem,
> a good very old light charged cork ball can measure at least the
> direction of the electric force at a given point. And to establish
> that the E fields points in clockwise direction around the whole loop
> you don't need more than the direction of the E force. As you see,
> these are not realistic recommendations what to do actually, but
> simply qualitative, pure theoretical considerations about what would
> be possible in principle. All I need is a simple enough way to test
> and falsify \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 when B changes.

There's no question the predictions of Maxwell's equations match with
observations over a vast array of experiments, provided one remains
within the "transverse" half of the decomposition and associated
two-wire transmission line concept.

It's where the model breaks down what matters and that is when you
start working with a single-wire transmission line, as illustrated by
Elmore. And what also matters are those "anomalies" around the
detection of FTL signals, which give further clues as to where exactly
the limits of Maxwell's equations are to be found, amongst which the
microwave near field region.

And of course the quantization problem, the result of having only one
wave equation for two distinctly different types of waves. One
non-radiating and one radiating into space.

>
> >> This intentionally avoids all references to your ether model or any
> >> fluid dynamics. That's important, given that you should understand
> >> that E and B are well-known to exist and their equations are
> >> well-established without even thinking about such models.
>
> > Yep, they are well-known to exist and insofar as the "closed loop"
> > principle can be applied, the equations describe the observations very
> > well. BUT the devil is in the details and even something as simple as
> > measuring a voltage is not as simple and straightforward as it seems.
>
> These are questions which are not very interesting for me, given that
> I'm a pure theoretician.

The difference between a closed loop (implying circulation) and the
open single wire transmission line alternative is highly important
from a theoretical point of view, as is the notion that a current
causes a voltage to occur across an ohmic resistance.

> I digest experimental papers caring only
> about understanding what has been done in principle, and extract the
> information about what can be observed in principle. Whatever, I think
> to falsify \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 the good old Faraday
> experiment should be sufficient. Because even if you think that the
> restriction to closed wires is not sufficient, a  \nabla \times
> \mathbf {E} = 0 cannot create a current in a closed loop because it
> has a potential, and such a current in a loop would have to go
> somewhere upstream and somewhere downstream.
>

The point is that a circulating current creates a magnetic field and
vice versa, whereby in practice you also get voltages in your circuit,
but these are simply caused because of ohmic resistances. It is
exactly this confusion that led to the term dB/dt to be introduced
into the model and it forces the E and B fields to *always* be
perpendicular with respect to one another. That this is, in fact, not
the case and waves are possible whereby this relation does not hold
has been shown by Elmore. Exactly there where Maxwell's equations run
into the limit of their applicability, namely the analysis of the
single wire transmission line, the one characterized by the
distributed series LC circuit counterpart to the distributed parallel
LC circuit as described by the Telegraphers' equations.