Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Lomax The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other exceptions. Cude What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. LomaxNor did I claim so. It's an exception to the oft-stated claim that fusion at room temperature is impossible. I will repeat my response to this from elsewhere, since I know you say you don't read most of my posts. You are hung up on muons, but it's not as persuasive as you think. At least not for me. Look, absolute statements are rarely absolute. To be accurate, they usually requires some qualification. But often these qualifications are not stated explicitly because the context makes it obvious. For example, I might say I can't walk on water, and people will understand the implied qualifications that I mean I can't walk on liquid water with ordinary footwear at ordinary speed. Of course I and my audience will be fully aware that I can walk on ice, and that some people can skim on water on skis (or even barefoot) behind a fast boat, and others will believe that Jesus can walk on water, and so on, but this doesn't make my statement operationally false, except in a pedantic, irrelevant way. No one will say, that since I can walk on ice, *maybe* I can also walk on liquid water in ordinary footwear, at normal speed, without divine power. In the case of fusion, everyone who says fusion at room temperature violates known theory, is fully aware that muon catalyzed fusion at room temperature is possible, and that fusion with an accelerator at room temperature is possible, and that deuterium fusion at room temperature occurs, but at a vanishingly small rate. What they mean, and what most people will understand, since they also know these things, is that fusion in ordinary matter at room temperature, without accelerating the particles, (i.e. in the context of a CF experiment) is predicted to be far too rare to produce useful heat. The point these people are trying to make is that CF as claimed violates theory, so bringing up muon catalyzed fusion which is consistent with theory, hardly negates the claim. Just because the statement as spoken, is in some literal sense, false, doesn't mean the intended message as understood by the audience becomes false. It's a complete red herring The only connection here is that if one form of catalysis is possible, with one catalyst, there might be others, unknown to us. Of course there is always a possibility that there are things unknown to us. The point of the skeptics is that it is highly unlikely, just like it is highly unlikely that a rock will fall up instead of down if I drop it, and the existence of muon catalyzed fusion has no bearing on that. In fact, even if we didn't know about MCF, the principle that there might be something unknown is solid, Exactly. So you agree the MCF is a red herring. Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in. Actually, not quite, apparently. Apparent only if you believe the CF claims. That's revisionist balderdash. They were clueless about nuclear physics, and expected to find fusion, and said as much in interviews after the fact. I'd love it if Cude would point to that. They spent 5 years looking for excess heat. I seriously doubt they were only interested in the science, or that they expected to find nothing. That scenario certainly doesn't come across in their early papers or in their early interviews. They sounded more like prescient sages who discovered what arrogant physicists missed. In an interview on Macneil Lehrer in 1989 he said It is this enormous compression of the species in the lattice [which he earlier said was 10^27 atmospheres] which made us think that it might be feasible to create conditions for fusion in such a simple reactor. They were looking for fusion, yes, but they understood very well that nuclear physics, i.e., existing assumptions, based on certain approximations, predicted that it would be unobservable. Ever hear of testing hypotheses, Cude? Sure, but there is not enough time to test all conceivable hypotheses, so one has to choose wisely. Existing nuclear physics did not just predict that fusion would be unobservable, but that it was 30 orders of magnitude below observable. If PF were really interested in the science, and not being seduced by free
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The fact that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields, and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and mainstream. You might consider studying Don Hotson and his idea of the epo field relating to PAM Dirac and the sea of negative energy to find some insight. Thank you. I realized recently that a better idea is to start by studying (and clearly understanding) the standard explanations first. I'm now studying electromagnetic theory, via MIT OCW courses. Afterwards I'll take the courses on General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: LomaxThe world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other exceptions. What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. In fact, the phenomenon was predicted theoretically before it was observed. The reaction rates fit the calculations perfectly. The fusion reactions follow expected branches. The production of muons for the purpose is understood. Everything makes sense. This was all understood in the 1950s. The only way this can be bootstrapped to explain CF is if you claim electrolysis, or deuterium absorption in Pd, or hydrogen absorption in Ni produces exotic nuclear particles, a process just as unlikely as any other proposed mechanism for nuclear reactions producing useful heat. Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in simplified situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As long as you stay away from messy situations, like the stuff that we live with all the time. Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in. Fleischmann and Pons were quite aware of this, and they agreed, but they also knew that it was possible, even probable, that there was *some deviation* from expected fusion cross-section in condensed matter. Fleischmann has written that he expected this to be below measurement accuracy, that he and Pons expected failure to find anything. That's revisionist balderdash. They were clueless about nuclear physics, and expected to find fusion, and said as much in interviews after the fact. So what now? I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of my net worth on Rossi being real, That's what he's counting on.
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking? You're right. I shouldn't have weighed in on this subject, but I couldn't resist when you said: With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic physics/QM, how come we can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! because the people who make calculations to the umpteenth decimal place use mathematics, and they would argue that they can explain why the fields are perpendicular using the same mathematics, based on some very fundamental principles. So the fact that *they* make accurate calculations, and that there is no explanation for perpendicular fields that satisfies *you* is not really a conundrum.
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On 5/25/2011 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective... In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other? The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our definition of what these fields are - which is in turn dictated by what we can measure with instruments. The most fundamental quantity related to these fields that nature seems to possess is a 3 dimensional time varying charge displacement field whose dynamic characteristics are excellently described by Maxwell's equations and whose definition seems most completely given by the two components which are conventionally called the vector and scalar potentials. However to date we are unable measure either of these components directly, but can only measure their differentials - eg the rate of change of scalar potential with distance (= electric field) and the integral around a loop (ie curl) of the vector potential (= magnetic field). It turns out that when this charge displacement field is propagating in a vacuum, these two components are naturally perpendicular because they are orthogonal components (in a mathematical sense) of the one entity. One might just as well ask why is length always perpendicular to breadth?. The answer would be simply that it is a convenient way to measure and define two independent components of a useful quantity called area! To provide an intuitive illustration of an EM wave one might imagine a long steel rod, one end of which is suddenly given a sharp torsional jerk or twist. This torsional displacement wave is a pure shear wave as there is no compression or rarefaction associated with it, and it will propagate along the rod from one end to the other as a coherent entity and at at characteristic speed determined only by the density of the material and its shear modulus (spring coefficient). If the mass displacement in the material is equated to the charge displacement in the vacuum then (I think!) this becomes a very good analogy of an EM wave propagating in a vacuum. The reason I have chosen torsional waves is because as far as we know the vacuum only supports charge based shear waves (ie displacement perpendicular to propagation. Experiments seem to prove that the vacuum does not support charge based pressure waves - ie displacement parallel to propagation as in sound waves - which is very surprising and remarkable I think!) If we now consider a small volume of the steel rod at its surface and analyze the stresses and strains in that volume, then we can always identify two conjugate quantities that between them support an oscillation and due to their distributed nature support the wave propagation. An analogous quantity to the vector potential (charge proximity times its velocity per unit volume) I think would be the linear momentum density (mass times velocity per unit volume). So the analogous quantity to the magnetic field is the mathematical curl of this - which is how much rotational component is present in this momentum. This is very closely related to (and possibly exactly equal to) the *angular* momentum density. The direction of angular momentum is always specified by the axis about which the quantity is revolving - and so in the case of this small volume at the surface of the rod, this axis is perpendicular to the surface of the rod. The analogous quantity to the electric field (or electric displacement) I think would be the shear strain density (ie how much the material is displaced in shear per unit distance along the rod and per unit volume). This shear displacement of course occurs in a direction which is tangential to the surface of the rod and about its axis - that being the direction that we applied the initial jerk. So here we have the magnetic field (angular momentum density) which is perpendicular to the surface of the rod, and the electric field (shear strain density) which is tangential to the surface of the rod, and both of these two are perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave along the axis of the rod. Now you can see that these two fields are simply mathematically orthogonal energy components of the single entity which is the wave motion. They are perpendicular only because of the interacting components and their definitions that we have chosen to describe the wave in terms of - in this case angular momentum (kinetic energy) and shear strain (potential energy) components. If we chose instead to describe an EM wave in terms of its vector potential (*linear* momentum density) and its electric field (shear strain density) then these components would still be mathematically orthogonal but they would be *parallel* in space. (They must always however be perpendicular to the direction of propagation because EM radiation supports axes of polarization.) So the conjugate fields of an EM wave
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Very thoughtful answer ... ... in fact the part about shear strain density seems to have relevance to what I was trying to verbalize wrt the interplay between temperature, electrical conductivity and mechanical strain in a few alloys: especially constantan and similar strain gauge alloys. Hope this is not reading too much into your comments but the net effect of electrothermal dynamics in a few alloys seems to be what can be called ghost current in the sense of the anomalous energy across the alloy being a function of Ohm's law: for instance where (E = .045 volt / R= 5 x 10-6) and the resultant current I = 9,000 amps, yet without the expected physical effects. This is an actual measurement, according to Dotto's patent. IOW - as surprising as it may seem, this exact subject area has relevance to a possible mechanism for enthalpy in a metal hydride devices (perhaps including the Rossi device) when the active material has a negative temperature coefficient of resistance. That is, when one assumes that to avoid conservation of energy problems, there is access to a hidden source of energy (ZPE) based on the precise physical dynamic of the hydride materials at the correct nano-geometry. Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ... Jones From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Mark Iverson wrote: Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective... In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other? The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our definition of what these fields are - which is in turn dictated by what we can measure with instruments. The most fundamental quantity related to these fields that nature seems to possess is a 3 dimensional time varying charge displacement field whose dynamic characteristics are excellently described by Maxwell's equations and whose definition seems most completely given by the two components which are conventionally called the vector and scalar potentials. However to date we are unable measure either of these components directly, but can only measure their differentials - eg the rate of change of scalar potential with distance (= electric field) and the integral around a loop (ie curl) of the vector potential (= magnetic field). It turns out that when this charge displacement field is propagating in a vacuum, these two components are naturally perpendicular because they are orthogonal components (in a mathematical sense) of the one entity. One might just as well ask why is length always perpendicular to breadth?. The answer would be simply that it is a convenient way to measure and define two independent components of a useful quantity called area! To provide an intuitive illustration of an EM wave one might imagine a long steel rod, one end of which is suddenly given a sharp torsional jerk or twist. This torsional displacement wave is a pure shear wave as there is no compression or rarefaction associated with it, and it will propagate along the rod from one end to the other as a coherent entity and at at characteristic speed determined only by the density of the material and its shear modulus (spring coefficient). If the mass displacement in the material is equated to the charge displacement in the vacuum then (I think!) this becomes a very good analogy of an EM wave propagating in a vacuum. The reason I have chosen torsional waves is because as far as we know the vacuum only supports charge based shear waves (ie displacement perpendicular to propagation. Experiments seem to prove that the vacuum does not support charge based pressure waves - ie displacement parallel to propagation as in sound waves - which is very surprising and remarkable I think!) If we now consider a small volume of the steel rod at its surface and analyze the stresses and strains in that volume, then we can always identify two conjugate quantities that between them support an oscillation and due to their distributed nature support the wave propagation. An analogous quantity to the vector potential (charge proximity times its velocity per unit volume) I think would be the linear momentum density (mass times velocity per unit volume). So the analogous quantity to the magnetic field is the mathematical curl of this - which is how much rotational component is present in this momentum. This is very closely related to (and possibly exactly equal to) the *angular* momentum density. The direction of angular momentum is always specified by the axis about which the quantity is revolving - and so in the case of this small volume at the surface of the rod, this axis is perpendicular to the surface of the rod. The analogous quantity to the electric field (or electric displacement) I think would be the shear strain density (ie how much the material is displaced in shear per unit distance along the rod and per unit volume
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Jones said: Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ... Contemplation and a Brain Enhancing ElixiR should do the trick! Or is it too early... :-) -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
John: I think you will find that many regular contributors on this list are of the same mind, in that they consider as a real possibility the existence of some kind of aether. There are numerous alternative aether-based hypotheses, but the mainstream scientific community doesn't have much interest in them... I have subscribed to a journal called 'Galilean Electrodynamics' for over 15 years, and they have published numerous such articles. Perhaps you should consider submitting an article to them for publication... they focus on experimental papers that contradict relativity theory, but are happy to publish theoretical papers as well. Part of my motivation for posting the original question as to the perpendicularity of E M fields, is to stimulate a little out of the box thinking, as the vast majority of postings since Jan 14 have been Rossi-related or debating a pathological skeptic who speaks in generalities and doesn't have the guts to use his real name... -Mark _ From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
So you are postulating that: What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically distorted electric field'. Okay, that's a good start... But then you say, ...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant... I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've proven something doesn't fly on this forum... What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is what I was looking for, and is certainly out the box thinking, however, it is NOT PROOF of what you are postulating. Can you provide some specific examples with calculations??? Are there any examples where your theoretical framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current theory does not??? -Mark _ From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
At 04:31 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: LomaxThe world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other exceptions. What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. Nor did I claim so. It's an exception to the oft-stated claim that fusion at room temperature is impossible. In fact, the phenomenon was predicted theoretically before it was observed. The reaction rates fit the calculations perfectly. Right. That's because it's a very simple reaction, comparatively. The fusion reactions follow expected branches. The production of muons for the purpose is understood. Everything makes sense. This was all understood in the 1950s. The only way this can be bootstrapped to explain CF is if you claim electrolysis, or deuterium absorption in Pd, or hydrogen absorption in Ni produces exotic nuclear particles, a process just as unlikely as any other proposed mechanism for nuclear reactions producing useful heat. I do not cite MCF to explain CF, only to point out the foolishness of blanket impossibility statements. There are exceptions. How many? We knew one in 1989. We also knew other exceptions to the claim that nuclear effects were not possible at room temperature. MCF was proposed as possibly related. That wasn't a tenable idea. The only connection here is that if one form of catalysis is possible, with one catalyst, there might be others, unknown to us. In fact, even if we didn't know about MCF, the principle that there might be something unknown is solid, and is the basis for new research, which, properly, is always looking for anomalies. Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in simplified situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As long as you stay away from messy situations, like the stuff that we live with all the time. Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in. Actually, not quite, apparently. But the world moves on and my ideas might become obsolete. Takahashi has proposed that deuterons occasionally would form a tetrahedral symmetric configuration, where four deuterons, with electrons, so this could be considered two D2 molecules, are arranged tetrahedrally. He *calculates* -- math -- that if this configuration arises (and this probably requires that the relative temperature of the four deuterons is close to absolute zero, my guess), it will collapse within a femtosecond and fuse within a femtosecond, to form Be-8. Be-8 normally decays within, as I recall, a femtosecond to form two helium nuclei. However, what happens after collapse and fusion has not been well-described by Takahashi. So there are two big problems with this theory, in spite of the math. 1. How does the TSC condition form? The approach is closer than two molecules will ordinarily manage, because if they approach at the cross-wise configuration that would, if the vectors continued, lead them to TSC, the repulsive forces from the electrons would break apart the molecules. Thus, for TSC to form, there must be some force resisting dissociation. The lattice, I presume. And has anyone calculated all the forces and times involved? Not to my knowledge. The math is very difficult, apparently. 2. What happens inside a Bose Einstein Condensate, if fusion takes place that results in a single excited nucleus? The electrons are part of the BEC, I think? What will that Be-8 nucleus do? Takahashi, at one point, predicted that it would radiate energy in a series of transitions down to the ground state, up until it fissions? Does being inside a BEC change the half-life? Does it change how the energy is distributed? And this is just one theory. Kim has published a different approach, also using BECs. I don't think the math has been done to examine the range of possible behaviors in Pd-D. For one thing, the environment is quite complex. Some think that oxides are involved, and it's a surface effect. It may happen only in lattice defects, not in the lattice itself. I'm not at all convinced that most research in the field is being published; consider that Rossi apparently worked for years. Consider Pons and Fleischmann themselves,
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Sorry, I was away during the weekend. I think the same as you about the electric and magnetic fields(they both are aspects of the same thing). And I have stated it clearly in other mails, by the way. I just wanted to hear, and was trying to understand, the standard explanation. If you think that that is beating a dead horse, I disagree. The fact that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields, and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and mainstream. Regards, Mauro On 05/29/2011 07:00 AM, John Berry wrote: Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The fact that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields, and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and mainstream. You might consider studying Don Hotson and his idea of the epo field relating to PAM Dirac and the sea of negative energy to find some insight. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
I know the calculations exist, but that is not my forte. What can we detect from the magnetic component of an EM wave? What we detect is the electric force it places of charges, this force is orthogonal to the magnetic field and is identical to the electric component. In other words the only way we can detect the magnetic component is from detecting the electric component. And if the magnetic component was not present, how would you know? Everything would be the same, for instance if you had just the electric component of an EM wave (transmitted from a wire antenna) and you had a magnetic particle such as a tiny permanent magnet which creates a magnetic field in the same way as a tiny electromagnet would. (only the size of an electron orbit) Then you would expect to notice a force on this tiny magnet, however the force you get would infact be manifested as an electric force on the electrons. And if you looked as it, the electric force on the electrons would make sense as the force on the electrons that are moving toward the source would be forced up while the ones moving away would be forced down. And if we were to look at what happens when we thrust a wire towards one carrying a current we would find a voltage induced into it, that is how generators work and why motors have back EMF. If we move the wire away the electrons would be induced in the opposite direction. Ok, so why is this electric force created? Well the distortion of the electric field of the electrons in the wire is complex as they are moving and you are moving toward them, if you look at the path they take you are closer to each electron as it moves away. Ok, so now I can explain this however it just occurred to me how this could be explained. Imagine you are approaching a train, the train is spraying water from several hoses straight out and you are walking towards this. The water hits you, first from your left then the right as the train is moving by, because you are approaching the train you get more wet on your right side because when each hose passes by your right side you are closer than when it was spraying at your left side. This means that if the train was negatively charged these negative charges would have more effect on your right side, this would induce a current in you that would push electrons to your left side. This is the same direction you would expect a current to be induced. Now I'll admit, I have no equations on any of this. I thought of all this myself thinking I had made a breakthrough only to learn that this has been known for a very long time and apparently the equations have been done. Maybe the equations wouldn't add up? At any rate I'm not the person to find out. But I would think it very strange that they didn't, seriously what are the odds of the same (except in magnitude) electric forces being created by Magnetism and by motion distorted electric fields being a coincidence? I'll admit I could be wrong, but you really must weigh up the evidence... All sources of magnetic fields are moving charges/electric fields. Magnetic fields are only felt as an orthogonal electric field, which is to say it only effects charges and the direction is Dependant on their sign motion. Analysis of how motion should distort electric fields creates predictions of forces the same as those expected from magnetic analysis and according to those who are able to calculate these the magnitude is the same. You and I should be able to come to agreement on all but the issue of magnitude which I can't hope to work out and will just take the word of those who apparently can and have said it adds up. Sure, when you hold a magnet and a piece of iron it takes some effort to do away with the illusion of a magnetic field and it is far easier than trying to work it out electrically. But if you want to you can explain it all based on electric fields being distorted. On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: So you are postulating that: What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically distorted electric field'. Okay, that's a good start... But then you say, ...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant... I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've proven something doesn't fly on this forum... What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is what I was looking for, and is certainly out the box thinking, however, it is NOT PROOF of what you are postulating. Can you provide some specific examples with calculations??? Are there any examples where your theoretical framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current theory does not??? -Mark -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, as you
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. Regards, Mauro
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
I explicitly stated my point in the last paragraph... and there were only 2 paragraphs, so I'm at a loss as to how you could have missed it. Here it is again... Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations. It is my contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational physical constructs. In addition, a subsequenct post goes into much more detail... I don't reject current theories, I just think that much better ones could be found... -Mark _ From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you don't want the one based on our best understanding (relativity and electrostatics) then I'm even more confused about what your question meant. At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your rejection of Cude's essay would make sense. Sent from my iPhone. On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be well aware that most contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and probably much more so. His statement about the language of physics is math is obvious. And CH's suspicions are wrong... I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. Of course it could be written mathematically! Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations. It is my contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational physical constructs. -Mark _ From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The language of physics is math. This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically.
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking? Do you simply accept hook line and sinker what establishment teaches you? If that's the case, then what are you doing on vortex? :-) Most here are quite familiar with 'textbook' physics, and that it is quite a useful set of rules... It has put men on the moon and millions of transistors on a very small slab of sand!! However, most here also realize that there are significant problems with it, and the whole purpose is to explore those problems... If you haven't figured it out yet, this isn't a mutual admiration society for establishment thinking. ;-) Now to get to your question: How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory? I know this is going to really stretch your brain cells, and will likely cause undue stress, but you asked... We were all taught that the fundamental particles that make up an atom are electrons, protons and neutrons... and that there was this concept of electrical 'charge'... And that electrons had a negative charge and protons a positive charge... And that like charges repel, unlike attract. So far, pretty basic stuff. Then we discover Cooper pairs... two electrons bound together! WTF The fundamental RULE says that like charges repel!!! Gee, I guess that RULE isn't quite reflective of ALL electron interactions! My contention is that the lack of a physical model has resulted in an incomplete mathematical model; a mathematical model that eventually is violated by some new observation... So then the theorists work feverishly, perhaps for decades, trying to manipulate and modify and 'renormalize' their equations in order to explain the new observation. Well, chances are good they will succeed, NOT because they are right, but because mathematics is such a diverse field that they eventually succeed in shoving a square peg into a round hole. But, it may or may not result in true understanding! If that was the case, then we would have been able to explain superconductivity by now... And yet it has been studied intensively for many decades and they still don't know WTF is going on... Why? Because they are starting with a flawed, abstract model for the electron! Back to the example of what I'd find satisfactory... Here's a simple physical (not mathematical) model which would allow for the existence of two like charges being attracted/bound to one another... Assume that the vacuum of space is a medium which is under tremendous pressure and has extremely low viscosity when it comes to movement within that 'medium'. Set up an oscillation in this medium, and you could see a very fast, periodic oscillation between a higher-pressure area and a lower-pressure area... Not unlike the compressional waves in air or water, but with a twist that there is a form of surface tension that restricts the higher/lower pressure areas to a small spherical area. Another image that comes to mind, although not entirely accurate, is the oscillations of a water droplet in zero-G. Now visualize the electron as a kind of dumb-bell shaped structure, or dipole shaped if that sounds more sophisticated, one end being the higher pressure area and the other the lower pressure area... The higher and lower pressure areas are NOT static, but are oscillating in a linear fashion, and its happening so fast that we cannot possibly discern their true physical manifestation. Now imagine two of these coming near each other but their high/low pressure areas are 180 degrees out of phase... One's HP area is next to the others LP area and vice-a-versa... Doesn't take a genius to see that these two entities would just want to couple together naturally! Cooper-pair. The Point being... The behavior in this case is simply a result of the makeup of the physical structures. Is there any doubt that one could find a mathematical model for this physical model??? No doubt at all... And it would probably be a whole lot simpler and easily extensible compared to what we have now. What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... Before the mathematics. After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to dominate theoretical physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model disappeared. -Mark -Original Message- From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On 26 May 2011, at 15:53, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The language of physics is math. This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. I also suspect that not all the necessary maths needed to describe all possible physical phenomena has not been invented yet. Joe
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
At 10:53 AM 5/26/2011, Charles Hope wrote: On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.comjoshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The language of physics is math. This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. Cude is representing the hold-over of the deterministic model of the world that has actually been largely rejected, the clockwork concept. Yes, most physics went to math, however, there is a problem. The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other exceptions. In the case of MCF, the reaction behaves similarly to how normal hot fusion, overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force, behaves, such as branching ratio and ash composition. (He-3, tritium, and various radiations). But would an unknown mechanism also produce the same branching? What if it goes through a Be-8 intermediary, for example, what if it is not 3 body but is 4 body or more complex? The math gets horrific, quickly, with 3-body problems and higher. Chemistry also uses math, but the foundation of chemistry is not math, it is observation. Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in simplified situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As long as you stay away from messy situations, like the stuff that we live with all the time. In theory, physics should be able to predict chemistry, entirely. Feynman taught me not to hold my breath waiting for this! But 1989 physicists were quite confident that physics predicted CF, in the complex condensed matter environment, was impossible. Fleischmann and Pons were quite aware of this, and they agreed, but they also knew that it was possible, even probable, that there was *some deviation* from expected fusion cross-section in condensed matter. Fleischmann has written that he expected this to be below measurement accuracy, that he and Pons expected failure to find anything. But they decided to test this. Then the damn thing melted down. They never again saw that level of heat, but, then again, they didn't try. Having your experiment melt down, burning a hole not only through the lab bench but also a few inches into the concrete floor may seem exciting, but what if they had gotten even more heat? They scaled down, and so has everone else working on this, plus they may have been -- probably were -- extremely lucky, that result was outside the normal envelope. There have been a few explosions, and one fatality, from smaller experiments. The fatality was apparently not due to the F-P effect, it was a recombination explosion in a closed cell, always a hazard. There have been, I think, two other explosions, that may not have been due to recombination, but this is all speculation at this point. Rossi cells, reportedly, have exploded. They should not explode, from the chemistry. However, a runaway heat reaction might create some spectacular effects. Skillful design should avoid this, and what would be needed for this is not public knowledge. What would be needed would be, for example, the behavior of the cell, precisely measured, at a controlled range of internal temperatures. Rossi is not about to release this information until he has full patent protection. He's certainly not going to release it because of the cries of pseudoskeptics that this isn't science. It isn't science. Get over it! It's engineering and business. We can't do much physics on this, not as to the reaction, there isn't anywhere near enough information to do more than blather (in any direction, skeptical or gullible.) I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to make money on this. I may lose money on my investment in Pd-D, though probably not much (those materials won't collapse in value, they have appreciated already for reasons completely unrelated to the success of cold fusion). In 1989, seeing the announcement, and being quite aware that it might be a flop, I bought $10,000 worth of palladium, held in a metals account at Credit Suisse. Later, I sold it, approximately breaking even, when it appeared that, indeed, it was a flop. Had I held the palladium and sold it at the peak, I'd have made a 900% return on my investment, by the way. If I held it beyond that point, it would have become, say now, only vrey roughly 200%, off the top of my head. Not bad. Better than the stock market, I think!
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
At 04:21 AM 5/27/2011, Josef Karthauser wrote: I also suspect that not all the necessary maths needed to describe all possible physical phenomena has not been invented yet. It's worse than that. In my lifetime, chaos theory developed, it was realized that there are situations where there may be infinite dependence upon initial conditions, where, between two sets of initial conditions with a similar outcome, there is another initial condition with very different outcome. In other words, to predict outcome, you would have to have perfect measurement of initial conditions. If initial conditions are quantized, i.e., if there is only a finite set of initial conditions, then, maybe, this problem disappears. However, even if that's the case, the quantization would be very, very small, and the hope of realizing measurement to this accuracy in systems beyond the very small could be vain.
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you don't want the one based on our best understanding (relativity and electrostatics) then I'm even more confused about what your question meant. At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your rejection of Cude's essay would make sense. Sent from my iPhone. On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be well aware that most contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and probably much more so. His statement about the language of physics is math is obvious. And CH's suspicions are wrong... I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. Of course it could be written mathematically! Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations. It is my contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational physical constructs. -Mark From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The language of physics is math. This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically.
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
to what we have now. What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... Before the mathematics. After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to dominate theoretical physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model disappeared. -Mark -Original Message- From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You are not going to like my answer: Because it is their nature. snip Now Brian Greene would have me say Because it is their nature in this universe. Do you know Brian and why he would have me say that? If so, you would understand my answer to your question. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and magnetism experiments. ...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already evident. Not really. Electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory do not need to be perpendicular. The question was about em waves, and why they are perpendicular in waves. The reason was only partly evident pre-Maxwell in Faraday's law which indicates that induced electric fields are perpendicular to the changing magnetic field. The understanding that electromagnetic waves are possible required Maxwell's generalization of Ampere's law (his displacement current) which postulated that a changing electric field would also induce a perpendicular magnetic field. This was not observed directly, but only postulated based on the symmetry of the two fields and the ambiguity in Ampere's law as it stood. With this addition, the back-and-forth induction between electric and magnetic fields was recognized, and the displacement current was verified only by the observation of electromagnetic waves. So, the reason the fields in a wave are perpendicular is because the wave is sustained by induced fields, and induced fields are perpendicular to the inducing field. Of course I know, and wrote in the first post, that this merely pushes the question back to why are induced fields perpendicular. Why Faraday's law? Faraday's law (and all of Maxwell's equations) exist because of Coulomb's law and relativity, but unfortunately, the connection is not a simple one to visualize. Then, why Coulomb's law and relativity… The equations also require that the field are perpendicular. I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results). Again, this is only partly true. The fields don't have to be perpendicular. Only induced fields do, and a wave consists of induced fields, since they can exist in the absence of sources. Since the question was specifically about waves, the explanation comes from Faraday's and the generalized Ampere's laws. If he wanted to know why induced fields must be perpendicular, i.e. why those laws exist, he could have asked that. Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular aspect was already in that work. And I said as much in the first post. You must have missed it, which is understandable, since it was pretty dry, and perhaps not explicit enough. Here's what I said, with a small clarification bracketed: Now, you can ask why induced fields are perpendicular, or what is the reason for Faraday's law. Historically, of course, these laws [like Faraday's law, discovered by others] (Maxwell's laws collectively) were discovered empirically in the laboratory (except for Maxwell's displacement current, which was his stroke of genius). But as I said above, Maxwell added a critical component, essential to understanding electromagnetic waves, and therefore also why the fields are perpendicular in a wave.
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is supposed to reflect physical reality. My question was about the physical world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation. Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep asking, as a child does, but why?. Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is math. The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even cavemen, or even life on this planet! Obviously. I certainly didn't say anything different. I said Maxwell's equations were developed from laboratory experiments, and they predict that the fields in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular. (Not that E and B field are always perpendicular, because they aren't.) I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is more fundamental, the experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory). I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I was not suggesting that reality was a consequence of theory. But when you ask why something is so, without specifying what can be taken as understood, then it is a little difficult to answer. For example, one can ask why are planetary orbits elliptical. And another might answer because of the inverse-square law of gravity, and proceed to prove the connection mathematically. Some questioners, who are satisfied with Newton's law as fundamental, might be happy with the explanation. Others, like you, might object that that is putting theory before reality: Sure, I know that, but I want a qualitative explanation for why Newton's law exists. That's a very different question, and asking about elliptical orbits is perhaps not the most direct way to get at fundamental origin of gravity. JC has shown a great ability to regurgitate what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this simple question seems to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical reality and the mathematical models that attempt to explain what is observed. First, if this is a simple question, what is your answer? Second, I regret that I gave the impression that Maxwell's equations are anything but a mathematical description of what we observe. They were developed using certain observations, but then they were used to predict (or explain) other observable phenomena, like the perpendicular nature of the fields in waves. As I said before, the perpendicular nature *in waves* was not known or observed before Maxwell. And fields are not necessarily perpendicular; only induced fields are. Coming back to the elliptical orbits, they were in fact observed and known before Newton, and expressed empirically in Kepler's laws. Before Newton, if someone asked why elliptical, one could cite Kepler's laws, but in this case, the law does little more than state what is observed: orbits are elliptical, so it would really be case of begging the question. There was a mad race to find a more fundamental reason for Kepler's laws, and Newton won that race. More fundamental explanations for gravity would take centuries. As for your question, I started with the superficial answer. Electromagnetic fields can sustain themselves in the absence of sources because of reciprocal induction (changing E induces B, changing B induces E), and in laboratory experiments induction is observed to produce perpendicular fields. But I also went further and said that the existence of those laws of induction stems from Coulomb's inverse-square law and special relativity, but I made no attempt to connect them. And I also made no attempt to explain why Coulomb's law, or why relativity. Evidently, what you wanted was the reason for the laws of induction, for Faraday's law, and for the generalized form of Ampere's law. So let me try a little gedanken experiment that gives some sense of the perpendicular nature of the fields from Coulomb's law and relativity. It kind of explains the origin of magnetism, but is not a perfect explanation for induction. That would be more difficult. Consider two positive charges moving parallel in the laboratory. In the
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On 05/26/2011 05:09 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iversonzeropo...@charter.net wrote: Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is supposed to reflect physical reality. My question was about the physical world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation. Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep asking, as a child does, but why?. Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is math. Thanks for your detailed explanation. I suppose it's as good as it can be, based on classical existing theory, and without using math. Can you provide some reference for the above derivation, namely, the derivation of Maxwell's laws from Coulomb's law and special relativity? I was thinking last night about the radiative component that appears when an electrostatic charge is accelerated. That radiative component is proportional and perpendicular to the acceleration vector. Do you think that it can be related to the perpendicular nature of the magnetic field, or it has nothing to do at all? ... Now, if you want to know why Coulomb's law, and why relativity, you're on your own. Maye we can attempt that later :-) Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
They are not. If you vary the phase angle all of Special Relativity pops out. http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf Frank Znidarsic
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Frank, The math exceeds my skill set but I agree matter is real from a WSM or standing wave perspective and I even understand your posit that SR pops out of varying this phase angle. My only comment is regarding the semantic issues that always accompany this topic. One could argue that the phase angle ALWAYS remains precisely 90 degrees in the frame of the local observer or the frame of the observed and the phase of which you speak is by definition a relative measure between the different frames of the observer and observed - unable to exist in a local measurement between objects in the same frame. Regards Fran From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? They are not. If you vary the phase angle all of Special Relativity pops out. http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ --- On Wed, 5/25/11, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 8:34 PM John: Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what you're proposing... What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment present in all elementary particles where electrical currents don't even come into play? Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... this is the basis upon which NMR works!!! There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, they generate a magnetic field.. Found a spot here to make comment. A permanent magnet probably has by theory cohered axis of unpaired electron spins in one direction. Similarly the ferromagnetic field pole faces of a car alternator will have a collection of random directions of unpaired electron spins,(it is not magnetized); but during the process of macroscopic spin some of those random electron spins in 3D space will be tilted by application of gyroscopic principles, with the net result that many spins in one orientation will occur and the ferromagnetic material appears to be magnetized to a weaker degree then what can ordinarily achieved when the associated field windings are employed to make the second primary influence of obtaining a rotating electromagnet as the primary input of an alternator. In the following video a neon requiring over 500 volts for ignition is obtained from rotation of an unmagnetized field. http://youtu.be/FAc3jQziicc Video Records from 10/21/10; Again unbeknowst to me, at this point in time I was unaware that the 9 coil system providing 3 phases of resonant voltage rise, was in fact mistuned. I only discovered this later when attempting to film the reactance test. It is in this mistuned state that apparently because of the mutual induction wiring inherent in the 666 configuration, one of the three interphasal voltages will be literally in excess of 180 degrees phase angle difference in time, whereby the resultant voltage is greater then the summation of its component voltages which is certainly a paradox. Because of this imbalance, two of the phases will gain more resonant voltage rise seemingly at the expense of the remaining phase 2. Irregardless of the fact that the system is mistuned, these four videos investigate the addition of not only three high induction coil resonances to the three interphasal voltage rises, but also a fourth one connected in a one wire manner from the third resonance. The sequence can be properly termed a magnifier principle as it can be demonstrated that the free vibration established on the fourth coil in the unloaded state is greater than the source of its vibrations. When the neon is added as a load between the third and fourth reaction vibrations, where the fourth vibration is presumably made both by the loose magnetic coupling with the dual adjacent 70 lb larger coil of 68.5 H; which in turn has its water capacity enclosed in the core volume of the 60.5 H coil using a plexiglass capacity for its resonance. It is this reaction vibration connected by one wire means that then in turn is reduced below the source of its vibrations after powering the neon load between them. All of these effects are made from rotational magnetism alone where the field of the alternator is not yet enpowered. In the video the water capacity value used for the third vibration on the 68.5 H coil is diminished by raising its central electrode out of the dielectric but paradoxically its resonance is not disabled. The sequence of coil placements as interphasal loadings is covered in further videos. This video in itself seems to open a can of worms. I had noticed in the making of these alternator resonant circuits several peculiarities. For example identical values of measured capacity may be constructed, one a plexiglass flat plate capacity and the other the mentioned axial water capacity. Now when that required capacity is tested for resonance by adding a equally opposite inductive reactance,( the high induction coils) each C value gives different performance as q factor voltage rise. It was noticed that for induction ending circuits where the coil is used as an air core secondary that the flat plate capacity was inferior to the axial one, but if wafers of styrofoam were placed atop the capacity, this increased its performance. How can this be when that dielectric is not in the area between the plates? In the video Mr. Kitical is able to take the circuit out of resonance by sitting on the top plate of a plexiglass capacity, but when I go in there and start altering the C value by removing the rod of the cylindrical water capacity, no results are seen until the rod is entirely
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be well aware that most contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and probably much more so. His statement about the language of physics is math is obvious. And CH's suspicions are wrong... I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. Of course it could be written mathematically! Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations. It is my contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational physical constructs. -Mark _ From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The language of physics is math. This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically.
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
You're right Terry, I don't like your answer! And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question adequately... From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect relationship due to a polarizable vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are simply a result of the polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that polarization. With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic physics/QM, how come we can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? You are not going to like my answer: Because it is their nature. Yeah. Told you. It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from there. I like this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (click on the bubble to expand) but, there's always Wikipedia. Now Brian Greene would have me say Because it is their nature in this universe. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. You sound more like a philosopher now. I know it's cliché but, the more I learn, the more I see how little I know. It took me two years to grasp the meaning of mechanical torque only to find out that it really does not exist. All of our explanations are based on models and our models are not perfect. Can you imagine a body that must go through 720 degrees of rotation to return to its starting orientation? I'm beginning to come close. The real answer to your questions is We don't really know. But, we have useful tools with our models! Terry
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic physics/QM, how come we can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. What do mean by we? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which predict the waves. So, certainly some people can explain in arbitrary detail why they are perpendicular, given what we know about the properties of the fields as described by Maxwell's equations. It's basically Faraday's law and the extended Ampere's law that require them to be perpendicular in the absence of sources (i.e. in self-propogating waves). The curl of one field is proportional to the other, and since the curl of a vector is perpendicular to the vector, the fields must be perpendicular. Faraday's law is probably the simplest to imagine. Remember in a solenoidal transformer, a changing magnetic field along the axis produces an electric field that circulates the axis; i.e. it is perpendicular to it. An electromagnetic wave sustains itself because a changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field induces an electric field, and so they sustain each other as they oscillate, and according to the induction laws the induced fields are perpendicular. Now, you can ask why induced fields are perpendicular, or what is the reason for Faraday's law. Historically, of course, these laws (Maxwell's laws collectively) were discovered empirically in the laboratory (except for Maxwell's displacement current, which was his stroke of genius). But now we know that magnetism is just a relativistic transformation of the electric field. Maxwell's equations can be derived entirely from Coulomb's law and relativity, as many textbooks demonstrate. That's not an explanation that's easy to visualize, but that's where it all stems from. Now, if you ask why Coulomb's law, or why relativity, the answers become more philosophical, although there are certainly field theories that give a more fundamental basis for these things than just treating them axiomatically.
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
RE: sounding like a philosopher... Yep, since I'm an INTP personality type, I tend to focus on the forest... RE: our models... I guess what prompted my intial question to the Collective (re; perpendicular E and B fields) was that, although we do have some good models, they were done over hundreds of years and lack universality... And they fail to explain some of the simplest observations which we just take for granted. I think a much better theoretical foundation could be developed nowadays if we were to trash all theories and start over from basic observational facts. If you have time, please explain a bit more about your insights into (nonexistent) torque... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. You sound more like a philosopher now. I know it's cliché but, the more I learn, the more I see how little I know. It took me two years to grasp the meaning of mechanical torque only to find out that it really does not exist. All of our explanations are based on models and our models are not perfect. Can you imagine a body that must go through 720 degrees of rotation to return to its starting orientation? I'm beginning to come close. The real answer to your questions is We don't really know. But, we have useful tools with our models! Terry
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 16:08:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] What do mean by we? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which predict the waves. So, certainly some people can explain in arbitrary detail why they are perpendicular, given what we know about the properties of the fields as described by Maxwell's equations. I think you have this backwards. The mathematical models were developed to describe the facts on the ground, not the other way around. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You're right Terry, I don't like your answer! And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question adequately... From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect relationship due to a polarizable vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are simply a result of the polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that polarization. With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic physics/QM, how come we can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? You are not going to like my answer: Because it is their nature. Yeah. Told you. It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from there. I like this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (click on the bubble to expand) but, there's always Wikipedia. Now Brian Greene would have me say Because it is their nature in this universe. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 16:08:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] What do mean by we? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which predict the waves. So, certainly some people can explain in arbitrary detail why they are perpendicular, given what we know about the properties of the fields as described by Maxwell's equations. I think you have this backwards. The mathematical models were developed to describe the facts on the ground, not the other way around. Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and magnetism experiments. The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: The conclusion was inescapable: light is “an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves” propogated in the ether. The equations also require that the field are perpendicular. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500: Hi, [snip] Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and magnetism experiments. ...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already evident. The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: The conclusion was inescapable: light is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propogated in the ether. True. The equations also require that the field are perpendicular. I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results). Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular aspect was already in that work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Robin beat me to the punch... I was changing spark-plugs and serpentine belts on my car! Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is supposed to reflect physical reality. My question was about the physical world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation. As Robin stated, twice now, and I'll state it a third time, The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even cavemen, or even life on this planet! I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is more fundamental, the experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory). JC has shown a great ability to regurgitate what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this simple question seems to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical reality and the mathematical models that attempt to explain what is observed. Care to put your horse before the cart this time and give it another stab, Joshua? And you'd better not have any mathematical jargon in your answer... PS: I mean, stab at explaining perpendicularity of E and B fields, not stab your horse! :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500: Hi, [snip] Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and magnetism experiments. ...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already evident. The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: The conclusion was inescapable: light is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propogated in the ether. True. The equations also require that the field are perpendicular. I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results). Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular aspect was already in that work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
John: Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what you're proposing... What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment present in all elementary particles where electrical currents don't even come into play? Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... this is the basis upon which NMR works!!! There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, they generate a magnetic field... and other things (ferrous metals and other magnets) definitely are affected (i.e., have a force exerted upon them) by that mag-field. So I guess I'm at a loss to see how you can say that there is no such thing as a real physical magnetic field -- that's its only an illusion. -Mark _ From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, you need to consider my answer if you want to understand this. You are assuming that a thing called a magnetic field really exists and this is the reason for your problem. Consider first how to interact with or detect magnetic fields, first take the Neutron, what reaction does it have to a magnetic field? As far as I am aware, essentially none. Ok so what else is matter made up of, ok Protons and electrons, so how do these particles with electrical potential react to a magnetic field? By default they don't! Ok, so if you are moving the charges relatively to the magnetic field then what happens? Well if cutting across the so called magnetic field they feel a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and in a direction based on their electrical sign. So in an EM wave we have electrons and protons feel a force at right angles to the so called magnetic component, in other words they feel the electric component. So what can be detected on the magnetic axis? NOTHING. Of course a magnet will align it's self to the magnetic axis, but why is this? Well if you consider an air core electromagnet turned off it shows no reaction to the magnetic field, now if you put DC through it, it will respond by aligning with the external magnetic field, however if we look at each element of this coil we find that the force is placed on moving electrons because they are cutting through the magnetic field, the force on the electrons is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Ok, so an electromagnet feeling any magnetic force is really just an illusion. And the same is true of ferrous materials where the magnetic field is again created by moving charges. Ok, so how come magnetic fields exist only to establish an electric component at 90 degrees? Well consider what makes magnetic fields is: moving charges, and what feels magnetic fields is: moving charges. And what they feel is perpendicular and dependent on the sign of the moving charge. So if we look at moving charges, can we understand how these forces can arise? Actually YES! If you look at every source of a magnetic field you can calculate the expected force by looking solely at how motion is distorting the electric field. Ok, so in a piece of wire the protons and electrons are in about the same number and their electric fields sum to zero outside the wire (the electric field from every particle in your body stretches out to infinity), then if you apply a time varying electric field to the wire the mobile electrons wiggle back and fourth. This movement effects their field in much the same way that wiggling a hose makes the stream bend. The protons aren't wiggling so you can now look at what would happen from having electric fields from the electrons in a wire bent as it carries out into space: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ This clearly shows how the electric component comes about. Ok, so how about a DC electromagnet with an air core? Well what happens when matter moves? Well since Einstein and before the answer is that contraction of length takes place. So if we have a wire and move the electrons but not the protons, what should happen to the electrons field? It should be squashed, so consider the spherical field around an electron, imagine now lots of electrons in a row like peals on a necklace, look at the vectors of force from that electric field. Look at how any field lines not perpendicular to this train of electrons is cancelled by the other electrons fields, now if you were to pancake these electric fields a bit less field at the sides would be wasted and cancelled between them, and more in the perpendicular direction. I hope you are able to visualize this, this would create an unmasked electric field of sorts, this electric field also should exist and has been experimentally measured to exist as the Hooper Motional E field and it should exist even if you look on magnetic fields as real. Now I can hear you asking how this creates any illusion of a magnetic field, well let's now look at another parallel section of wire
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory? Sent from my iPhone. On May 25, 2011, at 20:33, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Robin beat me to the punch... I was changing spark-plugs and serpentine belts on my car! Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is supposed to reflect physical reality. My question was about the physical world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation. As Robin stated, twice now, and I'll state it a third time, The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even cavemen, or even life on this planet! I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is more fundamental, the experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory). JC has shown a great ability to regurgitate what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this simple question seems to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical reality and the mathematical models that attempt to explain what is observed. Care to put your horse before the cart this time and give it another stab, Joshua? And you'd better not have any mathematical jargon in your answer... PS: I mean, stab at explaining perpendicularity of E and B fields, not stab your horse! :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500: Hi, [snip] Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and magnetism experiments. ...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already evident. The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: The conclusion was inescapable: light is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propogated in the ether. True. The equations also require that the field are perpendicular. I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results). Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular aspect was already in that work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote: John: Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what you're proposing... What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment present in all elementary particles where electrical currents don't even come into play? Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... this is the basis upon which NMR works!!! Ok, so are these effected atoms composed of charges? Are these charges moving? (spinning, orbiting or flying through a cloud chamber? There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, they generate a magnetic field Are you saying they generate the magnetic field without movement of the charges that make up the atom? ... and other things (ferrous metals and other magnets) definitely are affected (i.e., have a force exerted upon them) by that mag-field. So I guess I'm at a loss to see how you can say that there is no such thing as a real physical magnetic field -- that's its only an illusion. I think I have covered it above, these things work just like the electrons moving in the wire, electrons orbit, they may spin, the nucleus can spin too. -Mark -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:50 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, you need to consider my answer if you want to understand this. You are assuming that a thing called a magnetic field really exists and this is the reason for your problem. Consider first how to interact with or detect magnetic fields, first take the Neutron, what reaction does it have to a magnetic field? As far as I am aware, essentially none. Ok so what else is matter made up of, ok Protons and electrons, so how do these particles with electrical potential react to a magnetic field? By default they don't! Ok, so if you are moving the charges relatively to the magnetic field then what happens? Well if cutting across the so called magnetic field they feel a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and in a direction based on their electrical sign. So in an EM wave we have electrons and protons feel a force at right angles to the so called magnetic component, in other words they feel the electric component. So what can be detected on the magnetic axis? NOTHING. Of course a magnet will align it's self to the magnetic axis, but why is this? Well if you consider an air core electromagnet turned off it shows no reaction to the magnetic field, now if you put DC through it, it will respond by aligning with the external magnetic field, however if we look at each element of this coil we find that the force is placed on moving electrons because they are cutting through the magnetic field, the force on the electrons is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Ok, so an electromagnet feeling any magnetic force is really just an illusion. And the same is true of ferrous materials where the magnetic field is again created by moving charges. Ok, so how come magnetic fields exist only to establish an electric component at 90 degrees? Well consider what makes magnetic fields is: moving charges, and what feels magnetic fields is: moving charges. And what they feel is perpendicular and dependent on the sign of the moving charge. So if we look at moving charges, can we understand how these forces can arise? Actually YES! If you look at every source of a magnetic field you can calculate the expected force by looking solely at how motion is distorting the electric field. Ok, so in a piece of wire the protons and electrons are in about the same number and their electric fields sum to zero outside the wire (the electric field from every particle in your body stretches out to infinity), then if you apply a time varying electric field to the wire the mobile electrons wiggle back and fourth. This movement effects their field in much the same way that wiggling a hose makes the stream bend. The protons aren't wiggling so you can now look at what would happen from having electric fields from the electrons in a wire bent as it carries out into space: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ This clearly shows how the electric component comes about. Ok, so how about a DC electromagnet with an air core? Well what happens when matter moves? Well since Einstein and before the answer is that contraction of length takes place. So if we have a wire and move the electrons but not the protons, what should happen to the electrons field? It should be squashed, so consider the spherical field around an electron, imagine now lots of electrons in a row like peals on a necklace, look at the vectors of force from that electric field. Look at how any field lines not perpendicular to this train of electrons is cancelled by the other electrons fields, now if you were to pancake
[Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective... In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other? -Mark
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
You are not going to like my answer: Because it is their nature. Yeah. Told you. It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from there. I like this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (click on the bubble to expand) but, there's always Wikipedia. Now Brian Greene would have me say Because it is their nature in this universe. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
I have a different answer... Who says that they are a different field? In fact the magnetic field is really a fiction. Tell me what particle sees a magnetic field? What is effected by the magnetic component of an EM wave? Charges moving through a magnetic field actually see an electric force not a magnetic one, nothing responds to the magnetic axis and the response depends on the sign of the charge, they see the electric component. The magnetic field is just a persistent illusion of electric fields distorted through motion. I'd say prove me wrong, but this is actually conventional. John On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You are not going to like my answer: Because it is their nature. Yeah. Told you. It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from there. I like this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html (click on the bubble to expand) but, there's always Wikipedia. Now Brian Greene would have me say Because it is their nature in this universe. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective... In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other? Because the electric and magnetic *effects* manifest perpendicularly? The fields are an abstract(mental) construction. In reality, there isn't an electric and a magnetic field. There is just something )which in principle cannot be known directly), that manifests electrically (inducing eddy currents) and magnetically (producing magnetic fields). In short: electricity and magnetism are both sides of the same coin, and those sides are perpendicular to each other. Instead to opposite, like the faces of a real coin :-) Now, if you are asking for a more fundamental(topological?) reason those effects act and manifest perpendicularly to each other, I would very much like to hear it too. Regards, Mauro
