Re: Maxwell, Einstein and displacement current

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: 16 Sep 2004 18:45:59 -0700

"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2qu52rF149r1nU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:2202379a.0409160853.41c48f4f@posting.google.com...
> > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<2qrdvfF12gk8sU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:2202379a.0409150859.3f9b34c8@posting.google.com...
> > [hope my snip is ok...
> perfect spot! ]
> >
> > > > Let's step back and IIRC Maxwell's equations were discovered
> > > > prior to the discovery of charge quantization. (?)
> > > >
> > > > IMO any study of EM requires at least two charges, a single
> > > > charge doesn't exist because physically it manifests it's
> > > > reality only in a couple. The 9608038 paper above declares
> > > > a single charge radiating as a fact, (sorry I couldn't copy
> > > > the quote, I'll do it if asked). That's false, it's the relative
> > > > change of the positions of charges that create radiation, such
> > > > as when an electron and a nucleus vary their relative energy
> > > > potentials to fire off a photon.
>
> > > Good point and much easier to handle on paper. But we
> > > could say the universe consist of 50 positive and
> > > 49 negative homogenously distributed charges
> >
> > You need to unlearn, deprogrammation to follow...
> > To think that a charge exists is like saying I'm
> > going 50 mph without a reference. Charge is relative,
> > as velocity is relative.
> >
> Welll... I just unleaned the unlearning about 2 months ago
> so there may be hope. Your way is easier, for sure, so
> I'll love to loose this one, but I better take a stab at it's
> defence:
> Fundamental lepton charges are .511MeV but exist
> fractionally 1/3,2/5, 3/5, 2/7... in complex entities.

I'm not sure what we're questioning here, and more
precisely the post in general.

> {For over a hundred years the electron has been one of the most dependable
> and stable elements of physics; its foundation and workhorse. It has
> withstood all attempts to split it, has maintained its charge and has nearly
> always avoided relationships with other electrons. This year's Nobel
> laureates' discovery shows that electrons in powerful magnetic fields can
> associate with one another. They can behave like a quantum fluid and can act
> as if they could form new types of particle each bearing but a fraction of
> the electron's charge.
> } http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1998/illpres/
>
> So what is "relative" is the speed that the eletric flux
> lines of one entity cut across the magnetic flux lines
> of the other entity. The resulting Lorentz force then
> causes displacement or oscillation of the entities which
> can then radiate or do work.
> http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~jpe/fqhe.html
> >
> Unless you can tell the magnetic field of an electron
> from a positron then the net charge in the moving
> charge's neighborhood shouldn't affect the ability
> to produce radiation. Eh?
> >
> >
> > >and we
> > > are going to move one electron. against that magnetic
> > > background. I should radiate and exhibit a reaction force... no?
> >
> > It's not magnetic, you've given the universe a charge.
> >
> I think rather we woud say:
> all the spinning charges in the universe
> have given the neighborhood a magnetic permeability.
> Don't quote me on that tho.
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PermeabilityofFreeSpace.html

Ok, don't know, but that's alright, it's fine as
a postulate.

> > > After all, spinning charges make electrons into bar magnets
> > > without AFAIK too much concern for where the electron's
> > > antiparticle location.
> >
> > That's a bit more complex. The electron evidentally has
> > more than a single charge within it's structure.
> Hmmm I think magetic flux lines are integer countable but
> am not really sure whether that includes the fractions.
> If SQUID devices can "see" quasi particles it seems their
> lines too should be countable. I am really not sure since the
> "lines" are sort of abstrctions anyway.

That's what I think too.
> >
> > > http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l4.html Synchrotron
> > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/larmor.html
> > > >
> > > > Quantum theory has refined how that happens.
>
> > > Are you thinking only of atomic oscillators?
> >
> > No, but it's an example of how photon's are created.

> A synchrotron wiggler or VLF antenna is another.
> The B field of spinning electrons in a wiggler can interact
> with an electron beam to produce radiation from the
> relative motion. The positively charged target is only
> periphperially involved to keep the universe's bean
> counters happy supplying energy for the radiation
> reaction force and satisfying conservation of charge.

Ok, haven't studied that, but sounds reasonable.
 
> From page 10 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9608038 understood in the following
> manner. Really, every charge during its motion changes the electric field
> flux through some fixed surface S bounded by the contour C. According to the
> Gauss' theorem, the same rate of electric flux through S might be produced
> from any other point of space. It would correspond to some effective charge
> moving at the instant with a certain velocity. In terms of Stokes' theorem
> this fact takes a clear form. The circulation of the magnetic field is
> related with the amount of the electric current passing through the surface
> of integration. Since all surfaces enclosed by the contour C are equivalent
> in accordance with the conditions of Stokes' theorem then one could
> reasonably assume the existence of effective current in the space out of a
> charge that would make the same contribution into integral: >>
>
> |> Ok
>
> Abstract: It is shown that the field equations derived from an effective
> interaction hamiltonian for Maxwell and gravitational fields in the
> semiclassical approximation of loop quantum gravity using weave states are
> Lorentz invariant. To derive this result, which is in agreement with the
> observational evidence, we use the geometrical properties of the
> electromagnetic field.
> --Carlos N Kozameh and Florencia Parisi
> http://ernie.ecs.soton.ac.uk/opcit/cgi-bin/pdf?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F
> 0310014
> > > >
> >
> > ok
> >
> > > "The unhappy term 'magnetic field' for H should be avoided as far as
> > > possible. It seems to us that this term has led into error none less
> than
> > > Maxwell himself." It is therefore best to simply refer to the field as
> "H,"
> > > or, when necessary for clarity, the "auxiliary magnetic field"
> (Griffiths
> > > 1987, p. 230).
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/H.html
>
> > Yes, the H or B should be viewed only as an operator.
> >
> > The actualization occurs by electromagnetic exchange,
> > and that requires another charge "q" and a photon
> > generated by q*(&E/&t).
>
> Again, you allude to inter nuclear processes which are not
> the only EM radiative process so shouldn't be the lowest
> common denominator in sorting out which way Maxwell's
> pesky fluid is going to flow.

Off hand, I don't know of any other process to create
a photon, q*&E/&t or the equivalent.
 
> If we can unlearn enough of our unlearning, we might unlearn
> enough to tell someone else what they shouldn't learn. ;-)
> I'm not tryin' to be cantankeous so...
> "I'll stop here, for rebuttal."

Ha ok. There's some controversy as to whether or not the
electric field is a real physical entity. I argue not.
  Being very simple here, using Coulomb's force,

  F= qQ/r^2
 
It's *convenient* to rewite this as,

  F= q*E OR F= Q*E' (E'= q/r^2)

A photon is generated by &F/&t == q*&E/&t == Q*&E'/&t,
with the electric field just being a arbituary bracket in
the equation. What I think is important, especially using
relativity is &F/&t, hows does that fit for you?

> Kind regards,
> Sue...

Thanks, likewise
Ken
PS: I think we should snip before we fill up the NG's
hard drive :)

Loading