"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

snip



Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H
and
H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
"proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and
dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
plates of capacitors


Not so many papers, hours, or dollars.

I concur with most of what you said -- until here!
Two examples: One experiment used a superconductor based setup to try and
measure H "caused" by Displacement Current. Not an inexpensive exercise.

Worse still is a set of patents issued for a variety of Crossed Field
Antennas (CFA). The patent holder is a professor in Scotland. The basic
"operating principle" is the formation of separate E and H fields
using capacitor plates and inductors that are phased at 90 degrees to form
an EM wave. The claim is that the device is as efficient as a full-sized
antenna, but an order of magnitude smaller than conventional 1/4 wave
monopoles against ground.

Numerous antennas were sold. None worked. The most salient was on the Isle
Of Man where an entire multi-million dollar radio transmitter project was
scrapped -- with substantial losses to the investors since it was physically
impossible to substitute a conventional antenna.

So, Timo, the E causes H error is not just an academic exercise gone bad. It
has cost time and money.

The existence of electromagnetic waves, transverse (i.e., div(E) = 0,
div(H) = 0) solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation, is pretty good
evidence that the dD/dt term really belongs in the Maxwell equations, so
perhaps a more direct "proof" isn't seen as essential.

If I have understood your position on this, Timo, it is that the teaching
of
this is expeditious & that once one gets to the PG leve, the "true facts"
are revealed and everything is fine.

Well, for better or for worse, what is taught is necessarily simplified.
Alas, while a small number of misconceptions might be corrected in later
undergrad or postgrad education, many are not. With limited time, and
limited initial knowledge, there are limits to what can be taught. I
woulnd't say that everything is fine, just that it isn't easy to do much
better. One particular problem is that many (most?) courses lead to just
cramming for an exam, followed by forgetting. Emphasis on techniques and
proofs over any real understanding. One problem is that understanding
comes with experience, and a 1 semester course allows very little time for
that.

I don't think that the current issue (E, H, and causality) is such a big
deal. It's mostly harmless as far as beliefs go,

If you consider millions of dollars wasted in craossed field antennas as
"harmless." There are others "using" similar techniques. They do not work
"as advertised" either.

and only one of very many
various misconceptions that students pick up.

Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They are
being TAUGHT them.

The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies
in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that H
causes E and vice versa.

They learn far worse ones
along the way. It also isn't enough to just tell them in lectures -
students don't learn from lectures, they learn from assessment and
preparing for assessment. It's hard to assess understanding, so
understanding tends to not be assessed strongly, so students don't get
really motivated to understand.

That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And
it
begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
*something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but
that
they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
don't know it!

Likely enough.

Strong agreement here!

Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the
relationship
between E and H? Even ONE?

Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of advanced
(or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2
physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see
them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't
get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near
future, I will look.

Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
the movement of charges.""

Not too hard.

Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and
force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can
these
be modified sensibly?

I'd say that looking at Causality and incorporating what we learn into
new
expressions that include factors tor time variation of position and for
timevariation of mass would get the job done.

New expressions for what? My point is that it's easy enough to modify,
e.g., a force law (as Heaviside did Newton's law of universal
gravitation), or Coulomb's law (as per Maxwell), but a very different
thing to try to modify Newton's laws of motion, which are of a very
different fundamental nature.

Naturally, any such additions
must obey conservation of momentum AND must reduce to the original form
when
time dependancy is absent.

Well, if you want conservation of momentum, then you're _not_ going to be
modifying Newton 3. Also, if you want retarded interaction at a distance
along with conservation of momentum, then you're going to need fields that
can carry the momentum from point A to point B (or some other "thing" to
have the momentum when the "interacting" objects don't have it).

Yep. Gravitational fields do that.

Or we change our ideas about what conservation of momentum means.

No need to do that.


Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to
be
interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point
out.

Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a
situation
where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body,
and
we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
distance rather than Newton 3.
That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be
to
recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency.
That's
no
different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to
include
The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in
a
time-dependent environment.

I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the
other describes a limited set of experimental observations.

It is true that gravity is a whole bunch of orders of magnitude more
difficult to deal with experimentally than EM. Building planetary
objects,
setting them rotating, and zapping them past one another is way beyond
our
experimental capability.

BUT, we have a handy set of "toys" in our own night sky. And there we
have
an interesting set of pre-made experiments already in process. Like,
maybe,
does our model explain why the rotational speed of the Sun at the equator
is
different from the speed at the poles? Or does it provide some insights
into
Mercury's (supposedly) residual precession? Does it support or deny the
existence of black holes? Does it provide some insight into the "missing
mass of the universe" question? What might it say about gravitational
waves?
Does it provide a definitive explanation of the process wherein potential
energy is converted into kinetic energy by a falling body? Does it
explain
why EM beams are deflected by gravity?

But that's a lotta work. Doing it wrong is a lot easier!

Apart from the rotational speed of the sun, which at first glance is more
a matter of fluid dynamics and plasma physics rather than gravitation,

Try a second glance.


and
perhaps the missing mass stuff, yes, our best models of gravity do answer
these questions. Alas, they don't reduce to Heaviside's model in the
appropriate limit,

As I mentioned earlier, Heaviside didn't take it all the way. And that may
be because he was stuck in the "action at a distance" mode and did not seem
to thoroughy grasp Causality. Or perhaps he resolved this in his V4 of
"Electromagnetic Theory" (unfinished) that was destroyed by thieves and
vandals in 1925?


There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE
(or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s

Is this the one in his "Guidelines to Antigravity"?

Bill

about the weak-field limit of GR.


Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On 27 Jun, 17:21, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:35:23 -0700 (PDT), blackhead





wrote:
On 26 Jun, 03:25, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:32:46 GMT, "Bill Miller"

wrote:

"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it
begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
*something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that
they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
don't know it!

I fervently hope you're not teaching anyone. You're too ignorant to be
in the business of physics which is that of discerning cause and
effect. Instead of denying cause and effect, you should be analyzing
for the underlying science.

Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship
between E and H? Even ONE?

Tell us, omniscient one, what exactly what is this precious
relationship, of which you are evidently the exclusive franchisee?

Here's how I think it works: Volts applied to a coil build up H
ampturns/meter which when multiplied by mu store momentum B in
webers/m^2. Upon opening the circuit, momentum B divided by mu
generates a sizeable voltage back at the original terminals. The field
B is successively the sink and the source. Yes V causes B and B causes
V.

Cheers, Bill

John Polasek

A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?

You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
Panofsky Philips. They are much cleaner and simpler than Jefimenko's
which can be seen in Wiki.

For Lienard, yes, if you postulate a moving charge it will have
complex field effects. But in free space the only current J would be
Ddot and there is no overt charge density to put in Jefimenko's
equation.




This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.

For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
consequences:
* * * * 1. They have given up the coulomb in favor of the esu.
* * * * 2. It is not possible to assign units to equations e.g.:
* * * * * * *D = E * * * * * * *please, assign units
* * * * 3. they gave up capacitance which should be coulomb/volt (or
farads) in favor of
* * * * 4. capacitance in centimeters, a clue to the naive "peas on a
knife" view of electrostatics.
* * * * 5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum
capacitor.

Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.

The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
completely reciprocal fashion. And this, without the intervention of
charges.
John Polasek- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 27, 9:21*am, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?

You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
Panofsky Philips. They are much cleaner and simpler than Jefimenko's.

This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.

For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
consequences:
...
* *5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum capacitor.

Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.

The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
completely reciprocal fashion. And this, without the intervention of
charges.

You are comparing 'apples & oranges'. The Lienard-Wiechert potential
(not field) is a calculation of the retarded possible EM effects
generated by a POINT charge as might be experienced by another point
charge at another distant point (needed for the approximation used in
the derivation). It is simpler than Jefimenko's approach as Jefimenko
consistently uses electric charge density throughout and rejects the
phony limit approximation of subsequent point charges (the Dirac delta
'function').

Retardation is not a 'frill' added onto Maxwell's Equations - it is
the fundamental feature of EM that distinguishes EM from Newtonian
mechanics. Unlike Lorenz, Clerk-Maxwell could NOT handle retardation
as he was introducing a field theory that is only definined at ONE
point in space AND time - all the retardation effects from the source
charges are hidden (lost?) in the calculation of the point field
variables.

Your dismissal of cgs is typical of the 'modern' approach which throws
away the physics & concentrates only on the math; even Clerk-Maxwell
screwed up in 1865 by omitting important factors of c in his most
important EM paper. But then setting c = 1 is sooo elegant, right?
It's only a (physical) constant!

Your SI approach is truly magical. Simply by changing the units you
are able to conjure real effects out of nothing; in other words, the
vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
release it when required. Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
(delicious irony here).

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell
wrote:

On Jun 27, 9:21*am, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?

You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
Panofsky Philips. They are much cleaner and simpler than Jefimenko's.

This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.

For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
consequences:
...
* *5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum capacitor.

Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.

The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
completely reciprocal fashion. And this, without the intervention of
charges.

You are comparing 'apples & oranges'. The Lienard-Wiechert potential
(not field) is a calculation of the retarded possible EM effects
generated by a POINT charge as might be experienced by another point
charge at another distant point (needed for the approximation used in
the derivation). It is simpler than Jefimenko's approach as Jefimenko
consistently uses electric charge density throughout and rejects the
phony limit approximation of subsequent point charges (the Dirac delta
'function').

Retardation is not a 'frill' added onto Maxwell's Equations - it is
the fundamental feature of EM that distinguishes EM from Newtonian
mechanics. Unlike Lorenz, Clerk-Maxwell could NOT handle retardation
as he was introducing a field theory that is only definined at ONE
point in space AND time - all the retardation effects from the source
charges are hidden (lost?) in the calculation of the point field
variables.

Your dismissal of cgs is typical of the 'modern' approach which throws
away the physics & concentrates only on the math;
snip
SI has it right with the right units and cgs has it wrong with no
units. Cgs cannot assign units because they have been frittered away
for convenience.

Forget the Maxwell equations. Look at the constitutive equations.
cgs has
D = E Try to assign units or give names to D or E; they have
to be different and they have to be the same.
In cgs it is impossible even to talk coherently about what either one
of those two terms mean.
Note that cgs gave away the coulomb for the bogus emu or esu or
whatever, and the volt for the statvolt which is not even volts. Then
in trying to account for electrostatic force they insert the bogus
"Coulombs' constant". Who authorized another constant-certainly not
Coulomb!
E is naturally volts/meter as is surely determined by the hardwa
two plates, a battery and long division. In SI or rmks we have
D = eps0*E where eps0 is 8.8e-12 coulombs/volt*meter
(farads/meter) and E is volts per meter, so D is coulombs/meter^2.

I can assert E as the cause when I connect the battery, and D the
displacement charge density as the effect.
Notice that after the capacitor is charged, and the battery removed, D
takes its place as producing the same battery voltage at the two
wires, only now D is the source: D/eps0 generates E.
The situation is no better for B and H in cgs.
In cgs B = H
What nonsense! Here again the cgs protagonist must remain mute or make
a fool of himself if he tries to explain to anyone what the equation
means.
Vacuum has the impedance Z = 377 ohms in SI units.
It is true that
H = E/Z or HZ = E in SI units
H ampturns/meter x Z ohms = HZ = E volts/meter.
H and E are coupled by vacuum's Z = sqrt(mu0/eps0)
Your SI approach is truly magical. Simply by changing the units you
are able to conjure real effects out of nothing;
No not change units, introduce units. I would be pleased if you would
list as many of cgs units with their numerical values. I haven't found
any.
All this is assumed in a void vacuum using conventional fields. But I
have already confronted and solved this problem of how to store energy
in a vacuum and it's in my permittivity paper at
http://www.dualspace.net.
It shows a pairspace that must lie "under" our space to make this
possible.
in other words, the
vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
release it when required. Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
(delicious irony here).
Your attempts at biting irony are so pathetic.
John Polasek

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:23:50 GMT, "Bill Miller"
wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

snip



Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H
and
H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
"proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and
dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
plates of capacitors




Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They are
being TAUGHT them.

The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies
in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that H
causes E and vice versa.

snip
Strong agreement here!

Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the
relationship
between E and H? Even ONE?

Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of advanced
(or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2
physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see
them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't
get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near
future, I will look.

Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
the movement of charges.""

Not too hard.
You are full of beans. As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
they go along.
Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
the dark matter problem.
By the way which do you prefer:
D = E and B = H
or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?

The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in
a
time-dependent environment.

Whoever wrote the above is unaware that it should be Change of D field
to affect magnetic fields. Unless D = E.

I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the
other describes a limited set of experimental observations.

snip

There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE
(or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s

Is this the one in his "Guidelines to Antigravity"?

Bill

about the weak-field limit of GR.


Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Jun 29, 8:55*pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell
wrote:



On Jun 27, 9:21*am, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?

You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
Panofsky Philips. They are much cleaner and simpler than Jefimenko's.

This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.

For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
consequences:
...
* *5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum capacitor.

Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.

The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
completely reciprocal fashion. And this, without the intervention of
charges.

You are comparing 'apples & oranges'. *The Lienard-Wiechert potential
(not field) is a calculation of the retarded possible EM effects
generated by a POINT charge as might be experienced by another point
charge at another distant point (needed for the approximation used in
the derivation). *It is simpler than Jefimenko's approach as Jefimenko
consistently uses electric charge density throughout and rejects the
phony limit approximation of subsequent point charges (the Dirac delta
'function').

Retardation is not a 'frill' added onto Maxwell's Equations - it is
the fundamental feature of EM that distinguishes EM from Newtonian
mechanics. *Unlike Lorenz, Clerk-Maxwell could NOT handle retardation
as he was introducing a field theory that is only definined at ONE
point in space AND time - all the retardation effects from the source
charges are hidden (lost?) in the calculation of the point field
variables.

Your dismissal of cgs is typical of the 'modern' approach which throws
away the physics & concentrates only on the math;

snip
SI has it right with the right units and cgs has it wrong with no
units. Cgs cannot assign units because they have been frittered away
for convenience.

Forget the Maxwell equations. Look at the constitutive equations.
cgs has
* * * * D = E * Try to assign units or give names to D or E; they have
to be different and they have to be the same. *
In cgs it is impossible even to talk coherently about what either one
of those two terms mean.
Note that cgs gave away the coulomb for the bogus emu or esu or
whatever, and the volt for the statvolt which is not even volts. Then
in trying to account for electrostatic force they insert the bogus
"Coulombs' constant". Who authorized another constant-certainly not
Coulomb!
E is naturally volts/meter as is surely determined by the hardwa
two plates, a battery and long division. In SI or rmks we have
* * * * D = eps0*E * * *where eps0 is 8.8e-12 coulombs/volt*meter
(farads/meter) and E is volts per meter, so D is coulombs/meter^2.

I can assert E as the cause when I connect the battery, and D the
displacement charge density as the effect.
Notice that after the capacitor is charged, and the battery removed, D
takes its place as producing the same battery voltage at the two
wires, only now D is the source: D/eps0 generates E.
The situation is no better for B and H in cgs.
In cgs *B = H
What nonsense! Here again the cgs protagonist must remain mute or make
a fool of himself if he tries to explain to anyone what the equation
means.
Vacuum has the impedance Z = 377 ohms in SI units.
It is true that
* * * * H = E/Z or HZ = E in SI units
* * * * H ampturns/meter x Z ohms = HZ = E volts/meter.
H and E are coupled by vacuum's Z = sqrt(mu0/eps0)Your SI approach is truly magical. *Simply by changing the units you
are able to conjure real effects out of nothing;

No not change units, introduce units. I would be pleased if you would
list as many of cgs units with their numerical values. I haven't found
any.
All this is assumed in a void vacuum using conventional fields. But I
have already confronted and solved this problem of how to store energy
in a vacuum and it's in my permittivity paper athttp://www.dualspace.net.
It shows a pairspace that must lie "under" our space to make this
possible.in other words, the
vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
release it when required. *Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
(delicious irony here).

Your attempts at biting irony are so pathetic.
John Polasek

Irony is a matter of taste. I will refrain from ad hominem as it is
too undergraduate.
Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
electrons. This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT), maxwell
wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:55*pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell
wrote:



On Jun 27, 9:21*am, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
snip


John Polasek

Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
electrons. This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.

I am not trying to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current on the fly. I have analyzed for a mechanism to explain
vacuum's permittivity which you can see in excruciating detail as the
permittivity paper at http://www.dualspace.net.
The pairspace described has coefficients that define permittivity as
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 (sec^4*Amp^2/kg*m^3) which
translates to Coulomb/volt*meter = farad/m (mathcad translates this)
where L is the cell size = Compton WL x alpha= 3.54e-14m
or as
eps0 = rho*e/K
where K = 2.6e14N/m and rho = e/L^3
The compliance of permittivityis proportional to electron charge,
electron density and inverse to its spring coefficient K.
This pairspace is a dual space to our empty universe. It's where
gravity resides also.
John Polasek

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:23:50 GMT, "Bill Miller"
wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

snip



Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H
and
H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
"proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours
and
dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
plates of capacitors




Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They
are
being TAUGHT them.

The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies
in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that
H
causes E and vice versa.

snip
Strong agreement here!

Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the
relationship
between E and H? Even ONE?

Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of
advanced
(or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2
physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see
them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't
get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near
future, I will look.

Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
the movement of charges.""

Not too hard.
You are full of beans.

Yep... Had some last night.

As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
they go along.

Your case would be stronger if E and H (in an EM wave) were out of phase.
Then we would have a situation analagous to -- say -- a spring or water
waves, wherein kinetic energy gets swapped for potential energy, etc.

BUT E and H are in phase! How in the world can anyone imagine that two in
phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do so, I
believe we would all love to hear how it works.

THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!

Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
the dark matter problem.

Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the
separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.

By the way which do you prefer:
D = E and B = H
or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?

I pick....

Let's see...

Door number... Ummm...Well...

Oh gosh, I just can't decide!

Bill

The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields
in
a
time-dependent environment.

Whoever wrote the above is unaware that it should be Change of D field
to affect magnetic fields. Unless D = E.

I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and
the
other describes a limited set of experimental observations.

snip

There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE
(or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s

Is this the one in his "Guidelines to Antigravity"?

Bill

about the weak-field limit of GR.


Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Jul 1, 7:09*am, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT), maxwell
wrote:





On Jun 29, 8:55*pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell
wrote:

On Jun 27, 9:21*am, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
snip

John Polasek

Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
electrons. *This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.

I am not trying to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current on the fly. I have analyzed for a mechanism to explain
vacuum's permittivity *which you can see in excruciating detail as the
permittivity paper athttp://www.dualspace.net.
The pairspace described has coefficients that define permittivity as
* * * * eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 (sec^4*Amp^2/kg*m^3) which
translates to Coulomb/volt*meter = farad/m (mathcad translates this)
where L is the cell size = Compton WL x alpha= 3.54e-14m
or as
* * * * eps0 = rho*e/K
where K = 2.6e14N/m * and rho = e/L^3
The compliance of permittivityis proportional to electron charge,
electron density and inverse to its spring coefficient K.
This pairspace is a dual space to our empty universe. It's where
gravity resides also.
John Polasek

OK, John. Good luck. I find understanding our one universe enough of
a challenge, without doubling the problem.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:28:17 GMT, "Bill Miller"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
news
ruthless snip

Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
the movement of charges.""

Not too hard.
You are full of beans.

Yep... Had some last night.

As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
they go along.

Your case would be stronger if E and H (in an EM wave) were out of phase.
Then we would have a situation analagous to -- say -- a spring or water
waves, wherein kinetic energy gets swapped for potential energy, etc.

BUT E and H are in phase! How in the world can anyone imagine that two in
phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do so, I
believe we would all love to hear how it works.

OK, here's how they swap energy, (and remember, you promised to love
to hear this).
Using spring mass for simplicity and recognizing that the wave will be
sinusoidal, the force on the spring is proportional to displacement
Fk = F0 sin wt (say)
The force on the mass is proportional to acceleration, two derivatives
removed, so it's 180 degrees out of phase.
Fm = - w^2F0 sin wt
The energies likewise peak 180 degrees apart.

So you were approximately correct, that they are in phase, yes, in a
larger sense. After all, what's a minus sign? Well, shucks, let's just
admit that they are out of phase, as you were opining, making my case
stronger as you point out. I'm gratified.

THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!

Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
the dark matter problem.

Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the
separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.

By the way which do you prefer:
D = E and B = H
or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?

I pick....

Let's see...

Door number... Ummm...Well...

Oh gosh, I just can't decide!

You dodged the D=E bullet. That's a sure sign of a benighted cgs'er
who at least has the decency to feel a little guilty.


Bill


Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

John Polasek