Tue, 10 May 2005 11:47:17 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

In a post several weeks ago I discussed the Coulomb Unification of the
forces of physics and I spoke of coulombizing the 4 Maxwell Equations.
Then I entered a Fusion Barrier Principle conversation talking about how
Coulomb law is a sphere and Faradays Law is a cylinder. I want to
continue that line of thought because perhaps there is no Coulombizing
the Maxwell Equations because they are rock bottom foundation.

I did post this:

Coulomb-Gauss Law: div E = 4pi (charge density)

Gauss-Magnetism Law: div B = 0

Faraday's Law: curl E = -(1/c) (dB/dt)

Ampere-Maxwell Law: curl B = (1/c)(dE/dt) + (4pi/c) J

In the Fusion Barrier Principle the reason fusion controlled will not
exceed 2/3 Breakeven is because it is impossible to exceed volume or
surface area when enclosing a sphere inside cylinder or vice versa.
Every fusion event is a enclosing event of Coulomb law which is sphere
and Faradays law which is a cylinder.

So now let me extend that conversation to the whole of the 4 Maxwell
Equations because the idea that Coulomb law is a sphere and Faradays Law
is a cylinder extends to the NonMonopole Law and to the Ampere-Maxwell
Law.

In effect, this post is the world's first post that gives the Maxwell
Equations in a Geometrical formulation instead of the above Algebraic
(Calculus) formulation.

The Coulomb Law is a sphere. Nested spheres depending on magnitude of
the force. Faradays Law takes each one of those Coulomb spheres and
moves it in a straightline with the center of the Coulomb-sphere and
forms a cylinder.

The Gauss-Magnetism Law or NonMonopole Law is a defunct Coulomb Law or a
degenerate Coulomb Law. It is a point source Coulomb Law. Coulomb Law is
rich and encompasses alot of space whereas the NonMonopole Law covers a
single point. That is why Coulomb law is 4pi whereas NonMonopole is 0.

So when we geometrically extend the Coulomb Law of a sphere we produce a
cylinder.

When we examine the Gauss-Magnetism Law it is geometrically the Conic
Sections of 2 cones whose apex meet. The meeting of those 2 apex is a
single point. So the Gauss-Magnetism Law is those 2 cones meeting at
apex point. If the NonMonopole Law were false then what happens is that
the world has a Coulomb Law that is not a sphere or ball but instead a
half-sphere or a cup like a tea or coffee cup.

The reason Gauss-Magnetism Law is div equal to 0 instead of it equal to
some quantity other than 0 is because then the Coulomb Law would have
truncated spheres or truncated balls-- impossible.

The reason the universe or world cannot have a monopole is because then
the Coulomb Law would be truncated spheres or truncated balls. The
reason the world needs a Gauss-Magnetism Law is because the Coulomb law
itself does not cover the instance of a point. The Coulomb law covers
the cases when space is more than a point. The Gauss-Magnetism Law
covers the instance when space is a point.

When the Coulomb Law is in dynamical motion then the Coulomb Law becomes
Faradays law and geometrically what happens is that a ball when in
motion traces out a cylinder in space where the center of the
sphere/ball becomes a center of a cylinder.

Now what happens with the NonMonopole Law when in dynamical motion? Does
it trace out the Ampere-Maxwell Law?

Consider what the NonMonopole Law would be if it were the Monopole Law.
If it were the Monopole Law it would be the classical 2 cones of Conic
Section theory. Those 2 cones intersecting at their apex. And instead of
the Coulomb Law in motion tracing out a cylinder to become the Faraday
Law the trouble with the Monopole Law of Conic Sections of those 2 cones
would stretch out and be open ended.

So we see that in the Ampere Law needs to be a term added of the Maxwell
contribution of a displacement current. This is the (4pi/c) J term
needed into the Ampere Law to make it sound and consistent with the
other 3 Maxwell Equations. In effect what the (4pi/c) J term does to the
Ampere Law is to turn those 2 open ended cones of Conic Section and
transforms those 2 cones into a long cylinder.

So the geometrical interpretation of the 4 Maxwell Equations is that
Coulomb's Law is a sphere or ball in space. The Gauss-Magnetism Law is
the same as the Coulomb's Law but its domain is a single point in space
whereas the Coulomb Law has a domain of more than one point in space.
That is why Coulomb law has a positive quantity and the Gauss-Magnetism
law is zero. Now when we put Coulomb's Law into dynamics or into motion
we turn a sphere or ball into a cylinder. A ball when moved in a
straight line traces out a cylinder. When we put a Gauss-Magnetism Law
into motion of a Conic Section of 2 cones intersecting at an apex and
where the law governs is purely that single point of intersection. The
Ampere Law would be a Conic Section of 2 cones but what the adding of
the Maxwell term to the Ampere Law does is to topologically bend or
squash those open ended 2 cones into becoming a cylinder.

So, in effect, what I have learned in the last couple of weeks is that
the 4 Maxwell Equations are rock bottom and that I cannot and should not
be trying to coulombize the other 3 maxwell equations. They are already
Coulombized. And what brought me to this realization today is that of
the Fusion Barrier Principle. Because the 4 Maxwell Equations are really
simply just geometrical spheres and cylinders for which the spheres in
motion create cylinders.

In the above light one can thence say what is the difference between
electricity and magnetism. And at root the difference is that
electricity is more than a point and magnetism is only a point. The
Coulomb Law is a law of more than one point. The Gauss-magnetism Law is
a Coulomb law itself but only governing a single point and that is why
the one law has a positive quantity and the other is equal to zero. Now
when we put the Coulomb law in motion we trace out a cylinder in space
and we get -(1/c) (dB/dt) as a result. But when we put Gauss-Magnetism
Law in motion the sole term of (1/c)(dE/dt) would trace out a Conic
Section of 2 cones that extend infinitely in space. But this is nonsense
and so an added term that Maxwell added of (4pi/c) J to topologically
bend those 2 cones into forming a cylinder.

P.S. The reason the universe or world does not have a monopole and
cannot have a monopole is because the entire world is just Coulomb law
and if a monopole exists then the universe itself does not exist. You
see, the Gauss-Magnetism Law is the Coulomb Law governing a single
point.

I should make it clear above about Conic Sections. Remember 2 cones
intersecting at one apex point. The 2 cones are called nappes.

In the 1990s I thought the Maxwell Equations needed neutrinolizing in that
a neutrino can flip or switch into a photon. I was wrong about
neutrinolizing.

In early 2005 I thought the Maxwell Equations needed Coulombizing since the
forces of physics distill down into a grand Unification and the unifying
force is the Coulomb force. I was wrong about coulombizing.

For I now see that the Maxwell Equations are the lowest characteristics of
the photon and electricity and magnetism.

And the physics textbooks such as Halliday and Resnick are wrong about the
Maxwell Equations when they say they are asymmetrical with respect to no
monopoles even though we have isolated centers of charge. And the asymmetry
of Faraday's law with its negative sign.

But symmetry to what?

When we ask for symmetry of the Maxwell Equations with respect to a sphere
and cylinder then the 4 equations are totally symmetrical.

What we do is take the Gauss law of Electricity (Coulomb law) and combine
it with Gauss Law of Magnetism for which the one is a sphere for finite
diameter whereas the other is a truncated or degenerate sphere of a single
point. Coulomb's law does not cover a single point and that is where Gauss
law of Magnetism has to cover a point. The two combined is the general
Coulomb Law and we can envision the point as the intersection point of the
nappes in Conic Section.

And the Faraday Law and Ampere-Maxwell Law are totally symmetrical in that
one is a cylinder begot from the tracing out by a sphere in motion and the
other is begot by the topological bending of the nappes of conic sections
to turn into a cylinder.

So both Gauss laws are spheres where the Coulomb is a finite radius sphere
and where Magnetism is a point sphere and the point is the intersection of
the 2 cones in Conic Section.

And both Faraday and Ampere-Maxwell Laws are cylinders. Faradays Law is a
cylinder because a sphere in motion traces out a cylinder. And the
Ampere-Maxwell Law is also a cylinder only it starts out with being a Conic
Section with its 2 cones but when placed into motion the Maxwell added term
of displacement current ends up bending the nappes of the Conic Section and
transforms it into a cylinder.

So there is no asymmetry in the Maxwell Equations once one views them as
spheres and cylinders.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Tue, 10 May 2005 11:47:17 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

In a post several weeks ago I discussed the Coulomb Unification of
the
forces of physics and I spoke of coulombizing the 4 Maxwell
Equations.
Then I entered a Fusion Barrier Principle conversation talking
about how
Coulomb law is a sphere and Faradays Law is a cylinder. I want to
continue that line of thought because perhaps there is no
Coulombizing
the Maxwell Equations because they are rock bottom foundation.

I did post this:

Coulomb-Gauss Law: div E = 4pi (charge density)

Gauss-Magnetism Law: div B = 0

Faraday's Law: curl E = -(1/c) (dB/dt)

Ampere-Maxwell Law: curl B = (1/c)(dE/dt) + (4pi/c) J

In the Fusion Barrier Principle the reason fusion controlled will
not
exceed 2/3 Breakeven is because it is impossible to exceed volume
or
surface area when enclosing a sphere inside cylinder or vice versa.
Every fusion event is a enclosing event of Coulomb law which is
sphere
and Faradays law which is a cylinder.

So now let me extend that conversation to the whole of the 4
Maxwell
Equations because the idea that Coulomb law is a sphere and
Faradays Law
is a cylinder extends to the NonMonopole Law and to the
Ampere-Maxwell
Law.

In effect, this post is the world's first post that gives the
Maxwell
Equations in a Geometrical formulation instead of the above
Algebraic
(Calculus) formulation.

The Coulomb Law is a sphere. Nested spheres depending on magnitude
of
the force. Faradays Law takes each one of those Coulomb spheres and
moves it in a straightline with the center of the Coulomb-sphere
and
forms a cylinder.

The Gauss-Magnetism Law or NonMonopole Law is a defunct Coulomb Law
or a
degenerate Coulomb Law. It is a point source Coulomb Law. Coulomb
Law is
rich and encompasses alot of space whereas the NonMonopole Law
covers a
single point. That is why Coulomb law is 4pi whereas NonMonopole is
0.

11 May 2005 10:03:53 -0700 wrote:
By the way I often post with this alternate address of hotmail. As in the
rest of life, it is best to have 2 means should one mean be down.
(many big snips)



And at the moment it is recognized that Coulomb Law is the divE =
4pi(charge density). That law is a sphere of finite radius. But it is
missing a term. It is missing the question of a point itself. That
Coulomb Law of Gauss governs space of more than one point but it does
not govern space of a single point itself. And to remedy the problem
the overall Coulomb Force would look like this:

div E + div B = 4pi(charge density) + 0

In other words the old way of looking at Coulomb Force misses the term
of Coulomb for a single particle, a single point.


Basically I want to say today that it was unfortunate that no physicist
really saw that the Maxwell Equations are Quantum Mechanics itself and
quantum duality. That the E and the B are quantum duals of one another and
that Gauss's two laws of the Maxwell theory cannot be separate and
distinct laws but are joined into one. E by itself is a sphere with the
center as a hole or missing a point which is B. And B by itself is just a
point. The old Coulomb law thus was a sphere that was incomplete because
its center was a hole.

The new Coulomb law which I call "Overall Coulomb" is this E combined with
B to fill in that center hole.

In quantum physics you have particle wave duality. This is what E and B
are. They are particle wave duality.



Now one can combine the Faraday and Ampere-Maxwell Law
curl E + curl B = -(1/c) (dB/dt)+ (1/c)(dE/dt) + (4pi/c) J
to achieve that completed cylinder otherwise curl E alone has a hole
for its center which is a line-hole and which the curl B completes.

Likewise with Faraday's law and Ampere-Maxwell Laws. Geometrically,
Faraday's Law is a cylinder that has a line-hole because div E has a
center hole. Faraday's Law is just div E in motion and a sphere in motion
traces out a cylinder in space. And Curl B in motion traces out a line in
space. And when you combine the two into one equation then the cylinder
with its line hole is filled by the line that is curl B.

Ampere's Law by itself without the Maxwell add-on, is a Conic Section
where the B is the intersection of the nappes. The Maxwell add-on of the
"displacement current" was necessary because this add-on bends the Conic
Sections nappes into that of forming a cylinder. The Faraday's law is a
cylinder but a cylinder with its center as a line hole. Ampere's Law is a
Conic Section of a line in space. The Maxwell add-on of
displacement-current bends topologically the Conic Section nappes into
that of a cylinder.

So when you combine Faraday's law with Ampere-Maxwell law what remains is
a perfect cylinder. A cylinder with no holes.

So that was the symmetry that the Maxwell theory was grappling for. The
Overall Coulomb wanted to be a perfect sphere. The Overall Coulomb when in
motion is a perfect cylinder. And when you combine div E with div B you
get a perfect sphere. And when you combine curl E with curl B you get a
perfect cylinder.

The textbooks of physics such as my beloved Halliday and Resnick are wrong
when they cite that the Maxwell Equations have asymmetry. Asymmetry in the
no monopole and asymmetry in Faraday's law of negative sign. This is
wrong. When these laws are combined they are perfectly symmetrical because
they are perfect sphere and perfect cylinder.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

The verdict is still long out on whether the Maxwell Equations need
neutrinolizing. We do not know if the photon can somehow switch into becoming
a neutrino and vice versa. So on my website of www.iw.net/~a_plutonium where
I had written in the 1990s that of neutrinolizing the Maxwell Equations, I
should keep that remaining there until some clarity and understanding comes
in the future.

As far as my recent attempt to Coulombize the Maxwell Equations, meaning that
each equation has a Coulomb force law add-on, and even the Coulomb law itself
having an add-on Coulomb second term, was wrong. So wrong that it is foolish.
The Maxwell Equations are not about forces, although the Coulomb force is
embedded in the Maxwell Equations. The Maxwell Equations are about the photon
and the characteristics and behaviour of the photon. In my Unification of the
Forces of Physics, all the forces are a Coulomb force and so the Maxwell
Equations should have this ultimate unifying force. If the Maxwell Equations
did not have the Coulomb force, if we can imagine that, and instead had the
StrongNuclear force or the WeakNuclear force or even gravity but not Coulomb
force, then the ultimate unifying force would be this force.

I believe the reason I dived and dove into the idea of Coulombizing the
Maxwell Equations is because I realized the force of gravity is the coulomb
force. So in a sense, I was gravitizing the Maxwell Equations. But the
foolishness of that adventure is that I would have to dutifully
StrongNuclearize the Maxwell Equations and also WeakNuclearize the Maxwell
Equations if I gravitized the Maxwell Equations.

Basically the Maxwell Equations are about the photon, the characteristics and
behaviour of the photon, and the equations have one force which is the
Unifying force of physics-- the Coulomb Force. So I do not want to put a
Coulomb force in each and every one of the 4 Maxwell Equations. Instead, what
I want to do is to combine the 4 Maxwell Equations into 2 equations where the
"Overall or Generalized Coulomb Force" is begot. Instead of adding-on
additional Coulomb force terms, I need to combine div E with div B and to
combine curl E with curl B.

But as for the neutrino, it may be convertable into a photon or vice versa
and if that be the case, then the Maxwell Equations of the future will have
this switchability.

I suspect the force of gravity is carried by the neutrino. I suspect the
StrongNuclear force and WeakNuclear force carrier particle are some mesons
equal to the "nuclear electron" (each neutron contains a proton and
nuclear-electron as well as a neutrino). So this is a argument that says we
do not have to neutrinolize the Maxwell Equations. Because if the neutrino is
the carrier particle for the force of gravity, then the Maxwell Equations
neutrinolized would imply that the Maxwell Equations need be
StrongNuclearized and WeakNuclearized.

Alot of assumptions above and in these instances I have to rely almost solely
on intuition.

The important thing I need to find out now is when we combine div E with div
B and combine curl E with curl B does this new arrangement lead to any new
predictions not contained in the old Maxwell theory where the 4 equations
were separate and independent. Because if it leads to a new prediction and
new experiment then this "Overall Coulomb force" is true.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

You see the symmetry is violated when we try to Coulombize each and
every equation of the Maxwell Equations just because the force of
gravity is a Coulomb force. Because they we have to fiddle and change
the Maxwell Equations for every other force that comes along. We would
then have to fiddle and change the Maxwell Equations to accomodate the
StrongNuclear joined with the WeakNuclear that composes a
NuclearCoulomb Force.

So, the folly of my weeks ago attempt to Coulombize the Maxwell
Equations would be quite obvious a folly because the Maxwell Equations
would be in a constant state of repair for every force that comes
along.

However, several weeks ago when I realized that if I put both the div E
and div B together to form a *Generalized Coulomb Force* and that the
old thinking that only div E as a Coulomb force, sounds like a winner
and sounds true. Instead of the folly of Coulombizing each and every
Maxwell Equation, I ended up with the reverse that the true Coulomb,
the *overall Coulomb* was the combining of 2 of the Maxwell Equations.
The real Coulomb force is not just div E alone but div E combined with
div B. And when the Coulomb force is in motion of curl calculus then it
is curl E combined with curl B to yield the Overall or Generalized
Coulomb Force in motion.

But the Maxwell Equations can still be deficient and in need of
revision as per neutrino. The Maxwell theory is all about the character
and description of the photon. But if the photon can be produced or
change into neutrinos then that transformation needs to be embodied in
the Maxwell Equations.

So if the force of gravity is carried by the neutrino and the neutrino
is flipped back and forth between being a neutrino and being a photon
then the Maxwell theory needs that behaviour incorporated and it would
mean also to save symmetry that the StrongNuclear combined with
WeakNuclear to yield a NuclearCoulomb force would have the neutrino as
the carrier particle just as gravity has the neutrino as the carrier
particle. And it is quite obvious and apparent that the neutrino is
indeed a particle that is involved with the StrongNuclear and
WeakNuclear force.

If the neutrino never changes into a photon and vice versa then it
appears to my intuition that the Maxwell Equations are eternal as they
stand now and never in need of future revision. However, if the photon
and neutrino do switch into one another, then the Maxwell theory needs
a future revision where this switchability is incorporated into the
Maxwell theory.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
Whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies