- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
19 years 6 months ago #13236
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
BALL OF ASSUMPTIONS
It seems to me that the standard Big Bang Cosmology is composed of mainly assumptions. It is assumed that the CBMR is left over from this Big Bang. It is assumed that redshift is a valid measure of a Doppler effect and thus is a measure of expansion. It is assumed that all matter was created at the time of the Big Bang.
I would like to add to this list the assumption that a galaxy collects this matter - that matter flows in as opposed to matter flowing out.
And yet there is a view that the CBMR is the observed temprature of starlight. That the observed quantization of the redshift precludes a smooth regression, and now we have a means of creating matter today.
Interestingly, Linde's inflationary model 2.0 is based on the scalar field, it is the scalar field that expanded, and when it cooled down, THEN matter formed AFTER the Universe achieved its present size.
It's clear to me that the Big Bang is not a valid theory. But as Linde says, the only way to disprove it is to come up with a better theory. It is not my job to come up with the new theory, but I will attempt to dig up all the relevant information.
To do that, I am going to start a new topic Steady State III Emergence. Any help will be appreciated by all of us. Well, 49% of US.
It seems to me that the standard Big Bang Cosmology is composed of mainly assumptions. It is assumed that the CBMR is left over from this Big Bang. It is assumed that redshift is a valid measure of a Doppler effect and thus is a measure of expansion. It is assumed that all matter was created at the time of the Big Bang.
I would like to add to this list the assumption that a galaxy collects this matter - that matter flows in as opposed to matter flowing out.
And yet there is a view that the CBMR is the observed temprature of starlight. That the observed quantization of the redshift precludes a smooth regression, and now we have a means of creating matter today.
Interestingly, Linde's inflationary model 2.0 is based on the scalar field, it is the scalar field that expanded, and when it cooled down, THEN matter formed AFTER the Universe achieved its present size.
It's clear to me that the Big Bang is not a valid theory. But as Linde says, the only way to disprove it is to come up with a better theory. It is not my job to come up with the new theory, but I will attempt to dig up all the relevant information.
To do that, I am going to start a new topic Steady State III Emergence. Any help will be appreciated by all of us. Well, 49% of US.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13240
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />(JMB)
<hr noshade size="1">
To be honest with you,I need more than reminding, it is better if you teach me the theory of electromagnetic modes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The theory is very simple:
Consider linear Maxwell's equations (not field dependant permittivity and permeability, linear conditions at the limits). Any linear combination of solutions is a solution; this is the structure of a vector space: any solution is represented by a vector of this infinite dimensional space. A ray of this space (i.e. a set of all proportional vectors) is a mode. Remark that all vectors of the mode are deduced from a particular one by a multiplication by a constant named "amplitude" (it is useful to define an unit vector).
Supposing that there is a single solution in the space, a solution has an energy obtained by integrating in the space, at a given time, half the sum of the square of the electric field multiplied by the permittivity , and a similar magnetic term. If there are two solutions in the space, the energy of the sum of the solutions may be the sum of the energies of both, or not. In the first case, the solutions are said "orthogonal", represented by orthogonal vectors.
We often consider a base of the space of modes, infinite set of orthogonal modes such as any solution is a linear combination of vectors of these modes.
Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.
<br />(JMB)
<hr noshade size="1">
To be honest with you,I need more than reminding, it is better if you teach me the theory of electromagnetic modes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The theory is very simple:
Consider linear Maxwell's equations (not field dependant permittivity and permeability, linear conditions at the limits). Any linear combination of solutions is a solution; this is the structure of a vector space: any solution is represented by a vector of this infinite dimensional space. A ray of this space (i.e. a set of all proportional vectors) is a mode. Remark that all vectors of the mode are deduced from a particular one by a multiplication by a constant named "amplitude" (it is useful to define an unit vector).
Supposing that there is a single solution in the space, a solution has an energy obtained by integrating in the space, at a given time, half the sum of the square of the electric field multiplied by the permittivity , and a similar magnetic term. If there are two solutions in the space, the energy of the sum of the solutions may be the sum of the energies of both, or not. In the first case, the solutions are said "orthogonal", represented by orthogonal vectors.
We often consider a base of the space of modes, infinite set of orthogonal modes such as any solution is a linear combination of vectors of these modes.
Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13252
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.
However, we are then confronted with the notion of inflation, which has been described as something having its own physics. So in this definition, then inflation would be non-physical.
Thus there is a non-physical to be found in the physical sciences.
So what I am asking is how does Maxwell's mathematics treat this "non-physical?" And isn't this "ZPF" a connection to the non-physical?
And are they perhaps the same thing? Inflation theory, which is required to get to the place where the standard Big Bang theory can work, comes from particle physics, which talks about a scalar field
Andrei Linde writes in Scientific American's book "The book of the Cosmos." excerpted here
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good-by to te idea that our universe was a single fireball created in te Big Bng. We are exploring a new theory based on a notion that the universe went through a stage of inflation...Cosmologists did not arbitraily invent this rather peculair vision of the universe. Several workers, first in Rusia and later in the Unted States proposed the inflationary hypothesis that is the basis of its foundation. We did so to solve some of the complications left by the old Big Bang idea...The basic features of the inflationary scenario are rooted in the physics of elementary particles...To unify the waek and electromagnetic interactions despite the obvious differences between photons and the W and Z particles physicists introduced what are called scalar fields...Scalar fields play a crucial role in cosmology as well as in particles physics. They provide the mechanism that generates the rapid inflation of the universe...According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the energy of the scalar field must have caused the universe to expand very rapidly. The expansion slowed down when the scalar field reached the minimum of its potential energy...The stage of self-sustained expotentially rapid inflation did not last long. Its duration could have been as short as 10^35 second. Once the energy of the field declined, the viscosity disappeared, and inflation ended....As the scalar field oscillated, it lost energy. giving it up in the form of elementary particles.. These particles interacted with one another and eventually settles down to sonme equilibrium temperature. From this time on, the standard big bang theory can describe the evolution of the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you want to hear it straight from the horses mouth, here I copied from his website ( www.stanford.edu/~alinde/ )
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe
Inflationary theory describes the very early stages of the evolution of the Universe, and its structure at extremely large distances from us. For many years, cosmologists believed that the Universe from the very beginning looked like an expanding ball of fire. This explosive beginning of the Universe was called the big bang. In the end of the 70's a different scenario of the evolution of the Universe was proposed. According to this scenario, the early universe came through the stage of inflation, exponentially rapid expansion in a kind of unstable vacuum-like state (a state with large energy density, but without elementary particles). Vacuum-like state in inflationary theory usually is associated with a scalar field, which is often called ``the inflaton field.'' The stage of inflation can be very short, but the universe within this time becomes exponentially large. Initially, inflation was considered as an intermediate stage of the evolution of the hot universe, which was necessary to solve many cosmological problems. At the end of inflation the scalar field decayed, the universe became hot, and its subsequent evolution could be described by the standard big bang theory. Thus, inflation was a part of the big bang theory. Gradually, however, the big bang theory became a part of inflationary cosmology. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a single, expanding ball of fire described by the big bang theory, the universe looks like a huge growing fractal. It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more new balls, ad infinitum. Therefore the evolution of the universe has no end and may have no beginning. After inflation the universe becomes divided into different exponentially large domains inside which properties of elementary particles and even dimension of space-time may be different. Thus, the new cosmological theory leads to a considerable modification of the standard point of view on the structure and evolution of the universe and on our own place in the world. A description of the new cosmological theory can be found, in particular, in my article The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe published in Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 5, pages 48-55, November 1994. A nice introduction to inflation was written by the journalist and science writer John Gribbin Cosmology for Beginners . The new cosmological paradigm may have non-trivial philosophical implications. In particular, it provides a scientific justification of the cosmological anthropic principle, and allows one to discuss a possibility to create the universe in a laboratory.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, the reason the inflationary hyothesis was proposed was because the Big Bang did not work. In the book of the Cosmos, Linde reviews "six of the most difficult problems" the origin problem; the flatness problem; the size problem; the timing problem; the disribution poroblem; the uniqueness problem. It looks to me like what inflation theory does is create the Universe and then the big bang kicks in.
But the interesting part is the scalar field.
Google says:
( www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField )
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Koen van Vlaenderen & André Waser
Electrodynamics with the Scalar Field
The theory of electrodynamics can be cast into biquaternion form. Usually Maxwells equations are invariant with respect to a gauge transformation of the potentials and one can choose freely a gauge condition. For instance, the Lorentz gauge condition yields the potential Lorenz inhomogeneous wave equations. It is possible to introduce a scalar field in the Maxwell equations such that the generalized Maxwell theory , expressed in terms of potentials, automatically satisfy the Lorenz inhomogeneous wave equations, without any gauge condition. This theory of electrodynamics is no longer gauge invariant with respect to a transformation of the potentials: it is electrodynamics with broken gauge symmetry. The appearance of the extra scalar field terms can be described as a conditional current regauge that does violate the conservation of charge, and it has several consequences:
the prediction of longitudinal electro scalar wave (LES wave) in vacuum.
superluminal wave solutions, and possibly classical theory about photon tunneling.
a generalized Lorentz force expression that contains an extra scalar term.
generalized energy and momentum theorems, with an extra power flow term associated with LES waves.
a charge density wave that only induces a scalar field is possible in this theory. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.
However, we are then confronted with the notion of inflation, which has been described as something having its own physics. So in this definition, then inflation would be non-physical.
Thus there is a non-physical to be found in the physical sciences.
So what I am asking is how does Maxwell's mathematics treat this "non-physical?" And isn't this "ZPF" a connection to the non-physical?
And are they perhaps the same thing? Inflation theory, which is required to get to the place where the standard Big Bang theory can work, comes from particle physics, which talks about a scalar field
Andrei Linde writes in Scientific American's book "The book of the Cosmos." excerpted here
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good-by to te idea that our universe was a single fireball created in te Big Bng. We are exploring a new theory based on a notion that the universe went through a stage of inflation...Cosmologists did not arbitraily invent this rather peculair vision of the universe. Several workers, first in Rusia and later in the Unted States proposed the inflationary hypothesis that is the basis of its foundation. We did so to solve some of the complications left by the old Big Bang idea...The basic features of the inflationary scenario are rooted in the physics of elementary particles...To unify the waek and electromagnetic interactions despite the obvious differences between photons and the W and Z particles physicists introduced what are called scalar fields...Scalar fields play a crucial role in cosmology as well as in particles physics. They provide the mechanism that generates the rapid inflation of the universe...According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the energy of the scalar field must have caused the universe to expand very rapidly. The expansion slowed down when the scalar field reached the minimum of its potential energy...The stage of self-sustained expotentially rapid inflation did not last long. Its duration could have been as short as 10^35 second. Once the energy of the field declined, the viscosity disappeared, and inflation ended....As the scalar field oscillated, it lost energy. giving it up in the form of elementary particles.. These particles interacted with one another and eventually settles down to sonme equilibrium temperature. From this time on, the standard big bang theory can describe the evolution of the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you want to hear it straight from the horses mouth, here I copied from his website ( www.stanford.edu/~alinde/ )
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe
Inflationary theory describes the very early stages of the evolution of the Universe, and its structure at extremely large distances from us. For many years, cosmologists believed that the Universe from the very beginning looked like an expanding ball of fire. This explosive beginning of the Universe was called the big bang. In the end of the 70's a different scenario of the evolution of the Universe was proposed. According to this scenario, the early universe came through the stage of inflation, exponentially rapid expansion in a kind of unstable vacuum-like state (a state with large energy density, but without elementary particles). Vacuum-like state in inflationary theory usually is associated with a scalar field, which is often called ``the inflaton field.'' The stage of inflation can be very short, but the universe within this time becomes exponentially large. Initially, inflation was considered as an intermediate stage of the evolution of the hot universe, which was necessary to solve many cosmological problems. At the end of inflation the scalar field decayed, the universe became hot, and its subsequent evolution could be described by the standard big bang theory. Thus, inflation was a part of the big bang theory. Gradually, however, the big bang theory became a part of inflationary cosmology. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a single, expanding ball of fire described by the big bang theory, the universe looks like a huge growing fractal. It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more new balls, ad infinitum. Therefore the evolution of the universe has no end and may have no beginning. After inflation the universe becomes divided into different exponentially large domains inside which properties of elementary particles and even dimension of space-time may be different. Thus, the new cosmological theory leads to a considerable modification of the standard point of view on the structure and evolution of the universe and on our own place in the world. A description of the new cosmological theory can be found, in particular, in my article The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe published in Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 5, pages 48-55, November 1994. A nice introduction to inflation was written by the journalist and science writer John Gribbin Cosmology for Beginners . The new cosmological paradigm may have non-trivial philosophical implications. In particular, it provides a scientific justification of the cosmological anthropic principle, and allows one to discuss a possibility to create the universe in a laboratory.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, the reason the inflationary hyothesis was proposed was because the Big Bang did not work. In the book of the Cosmos, Linde reviews "six of the most difficult problems" the origin problem; the flatness problem; the size problem; the timing problem; the disribution poroblem; the uniqueness problem. It looks to me like what inflation theory does is create the Universe and then the big bang kicks in.
But the interesting part is the scalar field.
Google says:
( www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField )
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Koen van Vlaenderen & André Waser
Electrodynamics with the Scalar Field
The theory of electrodynamics can be cast into biquaternion form. Usually Maxwells equations are invariant with respect to a gauge transformation of the potentials and one can choose freely a gauge condition. For instance, the Lorentz gauge condition yields the potential Lorenz inhomogeneous wave equations. It is possible to introduce a scalar field in the Maxwell equations such that the generalized Maxwell theory , expressed in terms of potentials, automatically satisfy the Lorenz inhomogeneous wave equations, without any gauge condition. This theory of electrodynamics is no longer gauge invariant with respect to a transformation of the potentials: it is electrodynamics with broken gauge symmetry. The appearance of the extra scalar field terms can be described as a conditional current regauge that does violate the conservation of charge, and it has several consequences:
the prediction of longitudinal electro scalar wave (LES wave) in vacuum.
superluminal wave solutions, and possibly classical theory about photon tunneling.
a generalized Lorentz force expression that contains an extra scalar term.
generalized energy and momentum theorems, with an extra power flow term associated with LES waves.
a charge density wave that only induces a scalar field is possible in this theory. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13257
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13258
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.
I think what I am driving at is not so much that Maxwell's equations
can describe a ZPF field, but more so that it is obvious to me that EMFs have a source, and Maxwell did try at least to incorporate this source. There is something very suspicious going on in this regard, while Maxwell used the concept of Aether as his source, Aether is considered non-existent as evidenced by the M&M experiment interpretation and Einstein's non-use of it. And yet science has managed to come up with myriad, yes myriad versions of the Aether. What is suspicious is the total disregard for the Aether especially in the sense of "prior research" If this were a court of law, I would charge science with a crime of negligence and identity theft. The referee's should have caught this, and I am asking why didn't they?
Today, the top theory for the creation of our universe is based on a scalar field, necessary to instantaneously (almost) create the universe first, then the big bang "physics" work "better". So what is this scalar field and who first used it as a source of the energy matter uses to sustain its existence?
References:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<center>On Quaternions in Electrodynamics
Version 2
www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField
At the advent of Maxwell’s electrodynamics the quaternion notation was often used, but today this is replaced in all text books with the vector notation. If the founders of electrodynamics would have used the quaternion notation consequently with their most unique property – namely the four-dimensionality – they would have discovered relativity much before Voigt, Lorentz and Einstein. A short description of electrodynamics with quaternions is given. As a result a new set of Maxwell’s equations is proposed, which transform in today’s equations when the Lorentz gauge is applied. In addition an application of this new quaternion notation to quantum mechanics and other disciplines is presented.
One of the most emotional disputes in the late nineteenth-century electrodynamics was about the mathematical notation to use with electrodynamics equations. The today’s vector notation was not fully developed at that time and many physicist – one of them was James Clerk Maxwell – are convinced to use the quaternion notation. The quaternion was "invented" in 1843 by Sir William Rowan Hamilton. Peter Guthrie Tait was the most outstanding promoter of quaternions. On the other side Oliver Heaviside and Josiah Willard Gibbs both decided independently that they could use a part of the quaternion system better than the entire system, why they proceeded further with that, what today is called the vector notation. Generally the vector notation used in pre-Einstein electrodynamics uses three-dimensional vectors. The quaternion on the other hand is a four-dimensional number. To make the quaternion usable for the three-dimensional electrodynamics of Maxwell, Hamilton and Tait indicated the scalar part by prefixing an ‘S’ to the quaternion and the vector part by prefixing a ‘V’. This notation was also used by Maxwell in his Treatise , where he published twenty quaternion equation with this notation. But with applying this prefixes the whole benefit of quaternions is not used. Therefore Maxwell has never done calculations with quaternions but only presented the final equations in a quaternion form. It was then merely a calculation with vectors and scalars as today practiced.
This papers introduces a new quaternion notation and applies it first to electrodynamics. Then in a second step it is shown that this new notation is also very suitable for application in other physical disciplines like quantum mechanics or kinematics. A new extended form of Maxwell's equations is suggested which transform into the well-known equations if the Lorentz gauge is applied.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.
I think what I am driving at is not so much that Maxwell's equations
can describe a ZPF field, but more so that it is obvious to me that EMFs have a source, and Maxwell did try at least to incorporate this source. There is something very suspicious going on in this regard, while Maxwell used the concept of Aether as his source, Aether is considered non-existent as evidenced by the M&M experiment interpretation and Einstein's non-use of it. And yet science has managed to come up with myriad, yes myriad versions of the Aether. What is suspicious is the total disregard for the Aether especially in the sense of "prior research" If this were a court of law, I would charge science with a crime of negligence and identity theft. The referee's should have caught this, and I am asking why didn't they?
Today, the top theory for the creation of our universe is based on a scalar field, necessary to instantaneously (almost) create the universe first, then the big bang "physics" work "better". So what is this scalar field and who first used it as a source of the energy matter uses to sustain its existence?
References:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<center>On Quaternions in Electrodynamics
Version 2
www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField
At the advent of Maxwell’s electrodynamics the quaternion notation was often used, but today this is replaced in all text books with the vector notation. If the founders of electrodynamics would have used the quaternion notation consequently with their most unique property – namely the four-dimensionality – they would have discovered relativity much before Voigt, Lorentz and Einstein. A short description of electrodynamics with quaternions is given. As a result a new set of Maxwell’s equations is proposed, which transform in today’s equations when the Lorentz gauge is applied. In addition an application of this new quaternion notation to quantum mechanics and other disciplines is presented.
One of the most emotional disputes in the late nineteenth-century electrodynamics was about the mathematical notation to use with electrodynamics equations. The today’s vector notation was not fully developed at that time and many physicist – one of them was James Clerk Maxwell – are convinced to use the quaternion notation. The quaternion was "invented" in 1843 by Sir William Rowan Hamilton. Peter Guthrie Tait was the most outstanding promoter of quaternions. On the other side Oliver Heaviside and Josiah Willard Gibbs both decided independently that they could use a part of the quaternion system better than the entire system, why they proceeded further with that, what today is called the vector notation. Generally the vector notation used in pre-Einstein electrodynamics uses three-dimensional vectors. The quaternion on the other hand is a four-dimensional number. To make the quaternion usable for the three-dimensional electrodynamics of Maxwell, Hamilton and Tait indicated the scalar part by prefixing an ‘S’ to the quaternion and the vector part by prefixing a ‘V’. This notation was also used by Maxwell in his Treatise , where he published twenty quaternion equation with this notation. But with applying this prefixes the whole benefit of quaternions is not used. Therefore Maxwell has never done calculations with quaternions but only presented the final equations in a quaternion form. It was then merely a calculation with vectors and scalars as today practiced.
This papers introduces a new quaternion notation and applies it first to electrodynamics. Then in a second step it is shown that this new notation is also very suitable for application in other physical disciplines like quantum mechanics or kinematics. A new extended form of Maxwell's equations is suggested which transform into the well-known equations if the Lorentz gauge is applied.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13261
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes. We may define point objects, and so on in mathematics, but a lot of mathematical tools do not have a physical meaning. In electromagnetism, we may use, to make demonstrations, systems which cannot exist physically, in particular isolated systems in which the EM field results only from known sources.
For instance, to define the orthogonality of two solutions (or two modes) of Maxwell's equations, we suppose that the considered solutions are alone in the Universe; this is mathematics, physically absurd, but useful for physics.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes. We may define point objects, and so on in mathematics, but a lot of mathematical tools do not have a physical meaning. In electromagnetism, we may use, to make demonstrations, systems which cannot exist physically, in particular isolated systems in which the EM field results only from known sources.
For instance, to define the orthogonality of two solutions (or two modes) of Maxwell's equations, we suppose that the considered solutions are alone in the Universe; this is mathematics, physically absurd, but useful for physics.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.430 seconds