quiet

It's true, another thread would be the best. Regarding the rest, now I notice that the question did not exist and, then, what I wrote is useless. I beg your pardon.

Have you read something about electro-optical Kerr effect and magneto-optical Kerr effect?

Hi, studiot. Thank you very much for the references regarding Maxwell and gravitation. You have focused on several details that interest me a lot. --------- Regarding the instantaneity of the capacitive interaction I have no bibliographical reference. I have only learned that the capacitive force is independent of the distance between charges (we will say between plates when the charges are lodged in metal sheets). In the case of a flat and parallel plate capacitor, the demonstration is an end-of-chapter exercise in textbooks. Can an interaction independent of distance depend on time? Example. At the ends of an insulating tube we place flat metal plates, without adhesive or anything else that fixes them materially to the tube. Then we take a battery and connect it to the plates. The capacitive force appears and the plates seal the tube. Now we can fill the tube with gas, until it reaches the pressure that the plates can withstand. Then we touch the positive plate with a negative charge of the same absolute value. What will happen ? In the positive plate, the capacitive force disappears at the same instant of neutralization. When does it disappear on the other plate? If we suppose that it disappears some time later, then the tube will not move, although there is a jet of gas coming from the end where the neutralization was carried out. That violates all the laws of physics. On the other hand, if at both ends the force disappears at the same instant, a stream of gas comes out from each end of the tube. The effects of both jets are the same and opposite. The tube remains still, without violating the physical laws. The tube can be as long as we want, because the capacitive force is independent of the distance. So, if the interaction between plates operated with finite speed, for example equal to C, the violation could last too long to ignore it, or end up proposing a kind of principle of capacitive uncertainty, which allows violating laws for times as large as we want. Regarding that, I do not have a bibliographical reference available. I have learned it in my student days and the notes, taken in class, only God knows where they are.

I only learned the mathematical formulation of energy. The intimate nature of each field and the way of storing energy are issues never addressed by my teachers. I never spent time looking for the subject in scientific publications. And the answer has not come to me casually. Within classical physics, they are very interesting questions. I will follow this thread because I would like to read some didactic response.

Hi Markus. If you read my post carefully, you can see that I not say unification theory in general. Maxwell and other scientists have not achieve an electromagnetic theory of gravitation. Kaluza and Klein have formulated a 5-dimensional unification theory. Electromagnetic theory of gravitation means that a purely EM phenomenon produces gravitation. Note that the key of my post is to relate the nature of space with the theory of everything, regardless of wich TOE could be finally succesful. --------- Another question. Believe you that if gravity isn't intantaneous, this is if it acts with finite velocity, the universe must be a chaos? The set of notices I know cotains only one phenomenon that can act instantaneosuly. That phenomenon is the link between the two charges when the mutual interaction have a capacitive nature. This link is purely electromagnetic.

Matter occupies a very small proportion of the space of the universe. The largest proportion is there, without containing matter. Strong interaction and weak interaction operate where there is matter. Where there is none, the electromagnetic field and gravitation operate. Maxwell tried unsuccessfully to formulate an electromagnetic theory of gravity. Other scientists tried, also unsuccessfully. If any of these attempts had been successful, today we would say that the largest proportion of the universe's space is occupied by electromagnetic field. In the standard model, everything except gravitation derives from the same basic scheme. There are attempts to incorporate gravitation to the standard model. The day that is achieved, we will affirm that all the space of the universe is occupied by the phenomena described in the standard model. This brief review allows us to understand that before asking what the space is made of, we must ask when the theory of everything will be achieved and well confirmed.

In some cases it is [math]\vec{B}=0[/math] in a region and, simultaneously, [math]\vec{A}\neq 0[/math] in the same region. Can this cause a misunderstanding in the reading of the mentioned document?

There are bosons. And there are fermions that are grouped and the group behaves like a boson. It could happen that the bosonic behavior was the norm in the more complex levels than the atom and the molecule, which are the levels accessible to our perception. There is no limit to the number of bosons that can coexist in the same finite region. They coexist without prejudice to each other. It does not seem impossible that our experience was linked to systems that behave like bosons. In that case, infinite bosonic wave functions could coexist in a limited region. And it is not impossible that our perception is analogous to a radio tuner, which resonates with the wave of the selected station. The dial allows the user to vary the resonance and capture each station individually. That does not mean non-existence of the other stations, whose waves are present in the same region of space. Nor does it seem impossible that the tuning of our perceptual system can never remain constant, because the Second Principle of Thermodynamics demands an incessant entropic variation. Entropic variation implies functional and / or structural variation. In other words, it implies incessant variation of tuning in our perceptual system. The lives of Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, correspond to waves in a region. If those waves are bosonic, nothing demands that they have lost existence. They can perfectly coexist with the waves of everything existing in the same region, this coexistence encompassing everything we perceive as events corresponding to different times. If instead of undergoing the incessant change of tuning caused by the entropic variation, we could command the tuning of our perception as the tuning of a radio, maybe we could live with Archimedes, with Galileo or with Newton. Our notion of time, divided into past, present and future, has nothing in common with the variable [math]t[/math] of physics. The laws of physics accept all the values of [math]t[/math] and work coherently with everyone. In physics, the values of [math]t[/math] correspond to what we call the past, what we call present and what we call the future. It is not impossible that we live in a bosonic world, where everything coexists, without us being able to perceive everything because our perceptual system operates in resonance.

An example. Suppose someone has told me something about an author surnamed Rañada, who published articles regarding electromagnetic knots. They are very imprecise data, because the full name of the author is Antonio Fernández Rañada and the phrase electromagnetic knots does not appear in the title. Likewise, if in the internet search engine you put the following, Rañada. "Electromagnetic knots" the search engine finds the author's publications.

Have you read something about witricity? Some people may react vehemently and say: no names, that's in diapers! But the question is related to the future way of providing energy. Then witricity has time to leave the diapers. Witricity is a progress, because it does not use cables to transmit energy. But there is a possibility of achieving greater progress. Some cosmological theories admit that the net energy of the universe is equal to zero. That is, energy of both signs, (+) and (-), in equal amounts, both created from the vacuum. Is it possible on a small scale to produce the same phenomenon that has spawned the univese? That is, to get the vacuum to deliver equal amounts of energy of both signs, in a way that allows us to take advantage of the (+) part, while the (-) part is contained in some level of the universe that does not interfere in our usual environment. If any cosmological theories of net energy equal to zero were definitively established, the idea of reproducing the phenomenon on a small scale would soon appear. Probably, the techniques to achieve it would not take long either.

Hi. I have been summoned as a free literary consultant. Without receiving a penny? So is. The wife of my lifelong friend, when he heard something I once said, began to plan a novel. On that occasion I said the following. --------- Take the Euclidean geometry as an example. Euclid chose as postulates the simplest and most intuitive notions. He derived from them theorems, in increasing order of complexity. The Euclidean geometry, presented in that form, is coherent and complies with all the logical rules. Someone could change the order of the presentation. How would that be? Instead of postulating the most intuitive notions, propose as postulates some of the high-level theorems obtained in the original presentation, to deduce from them the rest of the geometry. In this way, to arrive at the five postulates proposed by Euclid, the only possibility is to deduce them as theorems, starting from a set of counterintuitive postulates. The counterintuitive presentation would be perfectly valid, perfectly coherent, perfectly logical. Didactically it would be disastrous. The deductions would be horrifyingly complicated, horrifyingly extensive, and whoever succeeds in completing an important deduction will have carried a titanic effort upon his intellect. It really would be too late research in geometry. To qualify as progress the task of the Euclidean geometers would seem an excess. --------- When her husband and I discuss frustrating issues, she hears something about the counterintuitive style that physics has acquired after the sixth decade of the 19th century. She also hears when we say that all corporate-funded research does not reach public education. These groups pay and reserve exclusivity in matters considered strategic. Why does she prefer to consult me before her husband? Because her husband is not a teacher, he does not have patience and they end up arguing. He wants to end the novel with the majority of the world population forced to remain on Earth, enduring the poisoned and brutally cataclysmic nature, while the corporate elite, with all its entourage, teleports to colonies prepared outside the Earth, carrying everything necessary to continue their lives serenely. The woman has very well defined the plan of the novel. He only asks me for advice on a crucial detail, which is the next question. Would it have been possible in 1867, or impossible, to replace the intuitive presentation of physics with a counterintuitive one? From a person dedicated to literature I received a question too embarrassing. From the point of view of the logical structure and the mathematical formulation, the change of postulates is perfectly possible in any coherent theory. But in the context of the novel, possible means that the reader find some degree of plausibility, at least the minimum degree to ask if a powerful group, in 1867, could achieve that counterintuitiveness is imposed in the public education of physics. That exceeds my information base, because to discuss something like this, knowledge of history, macroeconomics, the formation of visible and hidden power groups, plus a whole set of information and knowledge that I do not have, are necessary. My hope is that some people in the forum can contribute ideas that help resolve the dilemma.

I do not reject the current models. Actually the only thing I did was to start from the force formula and the two Newton's shell theorems, to calculate the pressure in an ideal spherical model. Can an ideal model, as simple as that, compete with current models? Decidedly not. Can it suggest something that deserves to be reviewed or seriously investigated? Maybe. For example, to give a non-zero net magnetic field, the charged particles (+) of a plasma in the rotating state should rotate in the opposite direction to the direction of rotation of charged particles (-). Such a functioning can produce a dipolar magnetic field of the type observed on our planet. And it could produce it by involving, in the central region of the planet, an amount of angular movement much less than the amount implied by a molten metal core. This is an example of something that makes falsification possible, just as Karl Popper has defined that word in the scientific context.

The speculation about plasma, commented somewhere in this thread, does not imply that a metal, a solid or whatever is transformed into plasma by pressure. The plasma hypothesis would involve the transformation of a metal or a solid into plasma if we want to accommodate that hypothesis in some link of the theory of accretion. The ideal Newtonian model of a material sphere does not come to propose a model of a process that forms the sphere. I have the impression of incompatibility between the plasma hypothesis and the accretion model. Did you know that when something hits the lunar surface powerfully the vibration spreads like a wave around the moon? And did you know that the characteristics of the wave do not agree with a totally solid sphere? They agree with a sphere that has solid its shell farthest and has the rest hollow.

beecee, Strange, very interesting all those data. I take them, regardless of how much relationship they have with my conceptual confusion. Thank you very much.

Hi, studiot. I had read that post long before this moment. Granted, the accepted explanation of the polar aurora is based on the interaction between the atmosphere and the solar wind. It is a fact that I usually read from many years ago. Why do we want to speculate with some new type of explanation, when there is an accepted explanation? In my case, to exercise curiosity, without the intention of replacing the accepted explanation with another one not accepted.

Theoretical statements have been published that define the electric charge as a topological invariant. Do not ask me how the configuration space where this topological formulation works is constituted. The only help I can provide is to suggest that you search the internet for the following. "electric charge".topological In this way, the search is configured to show specific results.

My bewilderment is not alleviated by showing that RG and Newton's formula give very similar results quantitatively. It is not a quantitative bewilderment. It is conceptual, referring to the role of spacetime and the relation of its local form to the distribution of mass ... of the whole universe?

Hello, Strange. General Relativity baffles me, not Newton's formula.

I want to talk about a detail of General Relativity that has always puzzled me, with the hope of acquiring concepts that allow me to understand that detail naturally. Suppose a road operator declared the following. I have not caused the fall of the old woman. I have only dug the well where she introduced the foot. General Relativity proposes a logic similar to the operator's argument, since it implies the following idea. No massive object causes gravitational force on another. It only contributes to shape the spacetime and at the same time, in the place where it is, it obeys the local form of the molded spacetime. Example. In the vicinity of the sun, the form of spacetime depends a lot on the solar mass and little on the masses of the planets, on the stars that are not the sun, etc. The orbit that a probe travels around the sun depends a lot on the sun. Far away from the Sun are the most massive planets in the solar system. Those planets orbit around the sun. Does that mean that also at distant points, where there are several planets with huge masses, the greatest contribution to the local form of spacetime corresponds to the Sun?

The news says that theorists have reached a consensus regarding the interpretation of the foundations of quantum theory. I have tried, without success, to find some serious dissemination article, to help me understand that consensus.

Want you to be free with much energy?

If you think in cold way, is good idea to do more research before to say to university that something is wrong. Faraday, like you say, was the pioneer of homopolar generator. Tesla have introduced deep modifications, using a disk constituted by insulated partial pieces. I never have delivery time to study this issue. You did?

It seems an interesting topic. It also seems that I am completely uninformed about it. If you are not a member of the research group, have you tried to contact these people?

Hello Markus. The news says that the discussion, in this matter, is slowly being replaced by consensus. In my case, insufficiency of knowledge makes it impossible to find in this consensus something conceptually clear. Any description in didactic style would help me.

Hello DanielMB. Have you written the following? [math] S^* = \int \dfrac{1}{v} \ dl [/math] [math] S^* = \dfrac{1}{C} \int \dfrac{C}{v} \ dl = \dfrac{1}{C} \ \int n\ dl = \dfrac{1}{C} \ L_o [/math] [math] S^* = \int \dfrac{1}{v} \ \dfrac{dl}{dt} \ dt = \int dt [/math] [math] S = \int v \ dl [/math]