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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-04 15:44 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:18 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
> 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.

No, the mainstream hopes a lot to unify them, but has failed up to now.

> 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.

I think this is hopeless.

> 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.

No. There is a very long way from having a dream of unifying all
forces to actually doing this. In fact, in my approach there is also a
partial unification, there are essentially only weak and strong forces
in the SM model, and the EM field becomes a sort of combination of
some parts of both.

There is certainly nothing provable, and to construct a viable variant
is a very hard job.

> 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.

Sorry, once some theoretician has found a way which has some chance of
success, he no longer needs opening his mind to whatever alternatives.
Such "opening mind" exercises may be useful for those who want to work
in fundamental physics but have no idea how to start. I have already
developed a model in a quite successful way, and my mind has to remain
open for ways to improve that model, but for nothing else.

> 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.

I have survived nicely without own data. I had, with some luck, a
guiding idea which put me on the way to develop an ether theory. It
had already from the start the necessary equations - it started with
an ether interpretation of an alternative theory of gravity, Logunov's
"relativistic theory of gravity", and it appeared that as an ether
theory it works much better. This ether idea, together with the SM
itself, appeared to be sufficient as a guide toward my ether model of
the SM. But, of course, all the large amount of data which has lead,
finally, to the SM, is what implicitly guided me.

> In fact, it happened many times in the past that
> theoretical ideas were described within a model years before they
> could be experimentally verified.

Yes, that's what has to be expected. My SM model is also not exactly
the SM. It is, roughly, as close to the SM as possible (and necessary
to be viable).

> 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.

In the case of the SM, I had no chance for this. And as long as the
mainstream ignores me completely, they will not use the alternatives
my model will provide for the Higgs sector. You may, of course, hope
for your FTL longitiudinal wave, but you will predictably fail.

>> 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.

No. There can be many many failures. And looking at how some guy
performes some experiment would not be the appropriate way of error
search.

> 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?

Who knows?  But I doubt that such a classical mechanism can be of any
use, given that QT predicts all these things nicely.

> 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".

You have not yet a theory (with evolution equations and so on) which
gives these waves.

> 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.

According to EM theory (Maxwell) it is simply impossible as to create
them as to measure them. You have not yet another theory.  Except the
one where dB/dt is simply removed, which is as dead as possible. And
that "theory" will not give any waves at all.

>> > 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.

Of course. But that does not mean that he would reject established
equations which make a lot of well-tested predictions.

> 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.

The question is not how easy it is to test them. The question is if I
can present you a simple experiment which is accessible to your
equipment to see that your nabla x E = 0 theory is not tenable.

>> 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.

I do not claim that this gives something new. It simply gives
something obvious and trivial, namely that nabla x E = 0 is false once
you have some nonzero dB/dt, and that it is easy to falsify this even
for you with your equipment. If you acknowledge that this theory is
dead, fine, no necessity to repeat trivialities.

> 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.

First of all, you must recognize that the remaining theory is false
and can easily be falsified.

>> 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?

The default answer is "look at wikipedia". For the information how to
measure it this should be sufficient. The result will be quite
obvious. Namely \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 is dead.

> 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.

But Faraday's experiment does not go away and does not change its
result. So that \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 remains dead.

> 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?

No, that is not that interesting. First of all, the interesting
question is if \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 if dB/dt is nonzero. If
the answer is no, then you can forget about your proposal to change
the Maxwell equations.

>> 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.

No. You already have a problem, namely an experiment where dB/dt is
nonzero and, as a consequence of the Maxwell equations, \nabla \times
\mathbf {E} =/= 0.  And where all you have to do is to measure the
electric field in this situation to see that really \nabla \times
\mathbf {E} =/= 0. This is the decisive experiment between Maxwell's
theory and your "theory".

>> 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.

Ok, but if there is a theory consistent (for those low frequencies)
with the experiments, and you don't question the experiments, you have
to be able to recover, in your modified theory, the successful
predictions of the old theory you have questioned.

But you fail. For Faraday's experiment, your \nabla \times \mathbf {E}
= 0 equation predicts no current, but Faraday has observe one.

>> 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.

Don't distract. If it fails to recover the result for the Faraday
experiment, it is dead, and nobody cares about what it thinks about
those hypothetical 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".

Up to now, you have not found a viable way to rearrange something.
\nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 is in conflict with Faraday's
experiment.

> 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.

Whatever, we have a force acting on small charged kork balls, not?
And we can measure this force, by putting such kork balls at some
interesting places, not?  This force field is known as E, and it is
not a good idea to redefine it.

If you think some polarity plays some role there, creates a force, and
that force is important in Faraday's experiment, fine.  Develop a
theory which describes the force which is measured, E, as consisting
of several parts, say E = E_pot + E_pol. Then you can have, for
example, \nabla \times \mathbf {E_{pot}} = 0, and the force which
creates what Faraday has observed is E_pol.

>> 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.

Not necessarily, but it is the simplest way.

>> 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.

First of all, you need a theory with meaningful equations at all.
Then you can start bothering about the limit.  \nabla \times \mathbf
{E} = 0  certainly does not have such a limit.  Once this is
unworkable, you have to start something new.

>> 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:

How to relate them to your ether theory is another question. The more
important question is that the Maxwell equations hold in the region of
the Faraday experiment, and this falsifies \nabla \times \mathbf {E} =
0.

> 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.

The far field is actually predicted by Maxwell's equations. Given that
this is simple enough, it is natural for similation software to
simplify the computations too. Such software simplifications don't
change the fact that the far field is actually predicted by Maxwell's
equations.

>> > 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.

No problem, I have time. I have written most of the texts having in
mind professional physicists as readers, and there is a lot which has
to be done to make it easier to understand and get the points for
laymen.

> Bottomline is: when you revise Maxwell's equations, everything changes
> within theoretical physics.

No. All the experiments remain the same, with the same results. You
may somehow reinterpret something, but not that much. Revising the
Maxwell equations is certainly not a good idea, they can be easily
tested in many details.

> 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.

My theory is a sort of "theory of everything".

>> 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.

Nobody cares about the fundamental cause for the fields to exist. We
have to care about the observables, and E and B are observables.

> 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.

In the low frequency domain, say, in Faraday's experiment, waves play
no role at all.  And that closed loop circuit is not necessary. Use
kork balls to identify the direction of the force. To falsify  \nabla
\times \mathbf {E} = 0 they will be good enough:

no force     force ->          force <-
|                \                  /
|                 \                /
o                  o              o

Then, simply let the kork follow the direction of the force. If you
finally arrive at the starting point, you have falsified  \nabla
\times \mathbf {E} = 0. (Again, I don't worry about the details, you
would need some dB/dt ~ const some time, this is not what I care
about, these are theoretical thought experiments, and you have to care
about the practical details.)

> We see this when we look back at two historic detections of FTL
> longitiudinal phenomena:
>
> 1) Wheatstone.

Sorry, no. Don't look back to Wheatstone, look first back to Faraday.
Once you don't like it with measuring the current, ok, do it with kork
balls. This measures E more directly, by measuring the force acting on
those kork balls.

>> 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.

There is a clear causal relation - if there is a changing magnetic
field, there is a current, if not, not.  If you change the direction
of the change of B, the current also changes its direction.

And, again, you can do the experiment without wires, but by measuring
E more directly (however inaccurate, accuracy does not matter given
that the sign of the force around a circle is sufficient to falsify
\nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0).

Note: E is the force (of whatever origin) acting on these kork balls.
Charge is (of whatever origin) the property of this kork ball which
makes it feel that force. There is nothing (ok, nothing reasonable)
you can do to change this.

>> 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.

I have proposed a way to check this with a method where ohmic
resistance plays no role. There are other ways to check this
hypothesis, namely, vary that ohmic resistance, vary dB/dt
independently, move the current measurement far away from the place
with large dB/dt, isolate it from magnetic fields, and so on.

That's the standard way anomalies are handled - and for your theory,
which requires \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0, such a current is an
anomaly. For every particular realization, one can find some excuses.
But you can vary the experiment by varying the devices used, to reject
excuses which blame the measurement devices.

You should be aware that whatever you observe will, if it is not what
is expected by the mainstream, handled in a similar way, only in the
other direction.

>> > 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")

Or in German "Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein 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.

No. There is no such animal as such "proper relations", they may be
proper only in the context of a particular theory. Here, your ether
theory. But your theory is in no way relevant for the Maxwell
equations.  They are well-defined, are about observable fields E and
B, and are well-tested.

> 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.

No, they are far from arbitrary, they have well-defined measurement
procedures as the definition.  This definition is usually based on the
actually most accurate way to measure the given thing. (That's why
these definition are sometimes changed, once a more accurate
measurement device is established.)

Once you don't have a new measurement device for whatever which is
more accurate than all known such devices, you have no base for
proposing a change of any of the definitions of those units.

> 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.

No. The units of measurement for E and B must match the actual most
accurate measurement procedures for E and B, and nothing else. And I
would not recommend you to propose any changes.

If your ether theory contains some fields E', B' which you, for
whatever reasons, want to add, then you have to introduce constants E
= c_e E'. B = c_B B' with the appropriate units.  These are your
ether-theoretical constructions.  E and B remain what they are, and
the SI defitions of their units remain valid too.  They make sense.

>> 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.

This is your hypothesis. Unfortunately, the "transverse" part seems
sufficient to test all the terms used in the Mawell equations for E
and B.  The proposal you have made simply destroys the equations
completely, without leaving the "transverse part" unchanged.

>> 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.

???????????

> 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.

Please don't introduce quantum things into the discussion, we consider
now a quite classical situation, namely Faraday's experiment.

>> 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.

The theory is the Maxwell equation, which has no problem, and your
ether theory, which has a serious problem with Faraday's experiment.

>> 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.

There are no wires in experiments with charged kork balls used to
measure the E field. (And your equation destroys the transverse
EM-waves too.)

> 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.

We can falsify \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 when B changes. Note that
in this case it does not matter what creates the current. All what
matters is the electric force. If the electric force gives a current
along a closed loop, it is not a potential force.  That's all we need.

> 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.

No. You can create, with static charges, quite arbitrary electric
forces (with the potential you like). Then you can put permanent
magnets into the situation. Also quite arbitrary. The result will be
static fields E and B, and they will not be perpendicular. They are
not connected at all as long as they don't change.