ambros

Jeremy0922, where can I find your manuscript and can you explain how do you model your orbitals, what equations and theory you use?

Where do you draw your conclusions from? -- Rotational fields are those where the field *vectors* point away from the source/sink, like tornadoes and magnetic fields. Do you think these field-lines and force-lines of gravity and electric fields ever actually point anywhere else but towards the "source mass"? -- If they did, these fields would not be considered "conservative fields". In short, it is impossible for these radial fields to ever change their rotation from zero, i.e. their field-lines and force-lines will always point directly towards the source, unlike magnetic field-lines or vortexes. Even if there are circular orbits resulting in such fields, that still does not mean the rotation is due to any curl. Maxwell's equations do not apply without relativistic correction? Retardation effect is not experimentally confirmed, so please stick to FOUR EQUATIONS known as "Maxwell's equations", as applied in classical electrodynamics, or at least write down the said equation here so everyone can see it. I have no idea what are you referring to, it's all very ugly. If that was true than gravity and electric field would not be conversational. Energy in such fields is exchanged via kinetic and potential energy ONLY, that is the prerequisite for these field to conserve the total system energy. How would you know that from "divB=0"? That equation is seriously missing any information about velocity, about magnetic constant, and about the amount of electric charge. Please try to apply whatever equation you are talking about and see if what you said is actually what equation says. Awww, you mean it's useless on its own? Ok, that leaves us with 3rd and 4th equation. -- Can you point any scenario or practical setup that can be solved with only 3rd equation - Faraday's law of induction? Can you point any example or experiment where we can use these equations in differential form?

1. The curl of a static gravitational field is zero Ok, but does it ever change? Does it change with the velocity, with acceleration, maybe only when it interacts with another gravity field? What does it take to change the curl of a single gravity field? 2. To solve the example, thanks to refer to the attached file. "Radiating moving charges" does not apply here and is unnecessary complication. I'm talking about the four equations that we call "Maxwell's equations", not some relativistic error corrections and additions. The same four equations Maxwell used to derive the speed of light and 'wave equation' without any "retarded time" corrections, can we concentrate on those four please. 1.) We have only one charge in this example, there is no interaction, no distance we need to account for where "speed of propagation of fields" error might happen - Lienard-Wiechert potentials, which is more of an addition to Coulomb's law anyway, and this effect has not been confirmed experimentally. 2.) I'm talking about constant velocity, no acceleration - no radiation, right? I wonder what is it that electron can radiate anyway, something inside of it? 3.) I'm talking about charges own reference frame, let's make it as simple as possible, ok? -- B®? Can you point any scenario or practical setup that can be solved with only 2nd equation - Gauss's law for magnetism? Can you point any example or experiment where we can use these equations in differential form?

Instead of promise, can you point some reference? -- Is there any situation where we can use differential form of Maxwell's equations and can you please point any such scenario or experimental setup? NOT SOLVED: Electron moves along x-axis at 25m/s. What is the magnitude of its magnetic field potential in arbitrary direction at distance 'r'? Please explain whether to use 2nd or 4th equation, and solve for B®. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you wish to understand any of this you really have to actually TRY to solve the problem: electron moves along x-axis at 25m/s' date=' what is the magnitude of its magnetic field potential in arbitrary direction at distance 'r', solve for B®. Enough talking, any kid can come here and pretend to know something by photocopying pages from some book while not understanding a slightest bit of what is being said. To understand is to be able to demonstrate, to show by an example, can you do that? -- And in the same time I'm still offering to demonstrate every single thing I said here. Anything else at this point is empty argument and hand-waving. Show me the money! [mp']Consecutive posts merged[/mp] I hope you actually used any of those equations for anything' date=' so please give us the most simple case scenario where we can apply each of these four equations. -- Can you point any scenario or practical setup that can be solved with only 2nd equation - Gauss's law for magnetism? Can you point any example or experiment where we can use these equations in differential form? You did not really address any of the issues. Obviously this is something that is not very apparent, so for me to be able to make a point it is necessary for you to follow my argument and respond to questions directly. 1.) Do gravity fields have curl? 2.) Solve the above example, B®?

That's quite impressive. I will submit and bow to Maxwell's equations if they can do that, but I bet 50pts that was done with Coulomb's law and Biot-Savart law. I could not find mention of any equations in product sheets. Do you know how it was done and where it is used?

You did not solve anything with any Maxwell's equation' date=' that was Coulomb's equation which can not be derived from Gauss's law, but I forgive you, so to concentrate on more peculiar part, B field. Why not to use 2nd equation - Gauss's law for magnetism? Again, we can not use integrals as we are solving for point charges in a single time instant so we can "look" at it from all sides, in full 3D, and line integrals can not do it, ok? That half-baked equation you offered can not even be applied to the problem, and it's still not solved for B®. rotB= J + dE/dt --> ∫B·dl = μoI(enclosed)? Why are you giving me equation for loops? Even if it was correct equation it would not be applicable in that form, that is not solution for B®, but some integral of some dot product, as I said the 1st time, what in the world you imagine you can do with that? My friend, you are being "two-dimensional", integral has sucked one whole dimension out of those equations, with them you can not see even a little bit in front nor behind, this is what you see if you look at single charge in single point in time with Maxwell's equations (left): http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/magnetic_field/ans2.html ...and this (right) is what Biot-Savart for point charges and I see. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I did not mean to assert that is a fact, I am trying to condense my meanings in as less words as I can, so rather I'm illustrating how I see it from my point of view, it was meant as a bit of joke, provocation, and rant indeed, sorry. Do gravity fields have curl? Biot-Savart and Coulomb's law define quite different properties of E and B fields, and together with Lorentz force they describe different, though somewhat similar, interaction, i.e. induction, mechanism. -- Am I right, am I wrong? What would it mean? What do you suggest should be done in order to find the answer, how to approach this issue? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The greatest challenge for me in all that was to scale the numbers and avoid problems with decimal precision' date=' to slow it down and make the whole thing animate smoothly while constrained with the hardware performances - in short, I thrown all the units out, scaled decimal places, kept just relations, so I really have no idea in what time and size scale I ended up with. Help me solve "the scale problem" *backwards* (if possible), find out the velocity in normal units and see if those electron-positron waves turn out to move with the speed of light... and if so, then I'll share the prize with you, for rediscovering the photon and solving the wave-particle duality paradox. There is a lot I'm still yet to learn about it, but I think it was there the whole time, those are experimentally measured numbers that came first with Coulomb's law and Biot-Savart law... elasticity and viscosity of the "vacuum", as they saw it back then, I believe. How can we combine symbols without any initial condition, without any numbers and yet get some number out of it? How many fields was he considering, how many fields are inducing themselves in his wave equation or 'speed of light' derivation - one, two fields? What is the physical meaning of those 'boundary conditions', positron-electron? Maybe that's it, are these 'boundary conditions' the same thing as 'initial conditions', like relative position and velocity of the fields as with Newton's laws and kinematics? As always, as described by Biot-Savart law - magnetic field is an effect of motion of an electric field and its magnitude is proportional to the velocity of an electric filed. If we can measure this magnetic field potential we can say we are measuring magnetic charge (analog measurement). I'm not sure if I understand the question, are you talking about "magnetic monopoles"? You get magnetic fields just like you get vorticity in fluids - due to the motion, of the wingtip in that particular photo above. So, we should not be surprised Biot-Savart law applies to these situations in aerodynamics as well. -- 100$ question: two parallel bullets("wires") - two bullets are shot in the same time and they move in the same direction close to each other through some gas, considering vorticity effect as shown on the picture above - will these two bullets attract, repel or neither?

What is that for? I am offering you a demonstration' date=' so to resolve this argument with practical scenario and real world measurements. You were supposed to give some experimental setup that can be solved with Maxwell's equations and where you believe Coulomb and Biot-Savart laws are just approximations so I can prove otherwise. You ended up with Coulomb's law, which Wikipedia and other people here confirmed is not really possible. It also makes no sense to have a set of equations and all you can do with them is derivation to get some other formulas that by some magic incorporate completely different relations. The question here is about applicability of Maxwell's equations and I am yet to see any direct numerical result come out of them at all. What approximation are you talking about? The only approximation in the whole story comes from wires, integrals and the unit of Ampere. It is no approximation if you know positions and velocity vectors, approximation is when you say: -"around 6.242 × 10^18 electrons passing a given point each second constitutes one ampere." And it gets worse. You see, amperes do not really tell you the VELOCITY of electrons, which is the most important variable in regards to the magnitude of B field. This definition, and so automatically Maxwell's equations too, are oblivious to different properties of different materials. The same current (amperes) WILL NOT produce the B field of the same magnitude in different conductors, because the speed and amount of moving charges will be different. -- Are you really trying to tell me: divB=0 --> B= k*qv x 1/r^2 ? Where is magnetic constant, charge and *velocity* in Gauss's law for magnetism? Most obviously, do you not see these two equations are opposite and contradict one another? Gauss says: "divB=0", but Biot-Savart describes: divB!=0, so whom do you chose to believe - the first equation that is approximated with line integrals and amperes, that can not even produce any numerical results on its own, or equation that actually gives results and is used in practice as it can describe this field with not just wires and electric currents, but also per point charge (maximum resolution). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I see you are skeptic' date=' Mr Skeptic. Which is good, especially if applied without prejudice. Interesting thing however is that I do not get anything else but waves, curls and spirals. For example, from a random positron-electron "soup" these charges will couple in electric dipoles oscillating around each other and actually gain directional velocity as a combined entity, while their oscillation plane may end up polarized vertically, horizontally or can twirl around as in twisted wire or double helix, so what I just described really is a transverse electromagnetic wave. To reproduce this all you need is the Coulomb's law, Biot-Savart law, Lorentz force and some program that can integrate this motion and draw it on the screen using Newton's laws of motion, i.e. kinematics equation. It is similar to modeling planetary orbits with Newton's law of gravity and the result would be similar if it was not for magnetic fields and Lorentz force, which is what turns orbits into directional oscillations, spirals, waves and such. I can even get the speed of light out of these equations, it is built-in value in magnetic and electric constant. Speaking of which, this is the only way Maxwell's equations can do it too, there is no other numerical value in those equations but these constants, so if they can produce any *numbers* from combining *symbols* 'cur', div', E' and 'B', that's only because these numbers were there before, it's a farce because those are experimental numbers. Hey, that's what I'm talking about too, what a coincidence. Ok, I submit "charge" and "field" have different units, but it is technically the same as when you measure electric field potential you actually measure its electric charge, no measurable filed potential = no net charge. There is no case where you can measure electric charge that you are not actually measuring electric field potential, and there is no case when you measure electric potential and can say there is no net charge, so if photon consist of electric fields, then it means it has electric charge, but is another story why do we measure that charge to be zero. It is really a paradox to have electric fields and not have electric charge, unless of course we are talking about superposition and net or combined amount of charge aka electric field potential. In the positron-electron wave described above there will be two charges and their electric and magnetic fields, their net charge will be close to zero, depending on where and when you measure it and how close you can get and how fast you can make the measurement and how well you can isolate a single photon... it's most likely to give zero value simply due to rapid changes of negative and positive amplitudes.

Ok, I'll leave semantics alone and concentrate on more practical issues. 1.) Biot-Savart is a fine enough approximation, its just not completely accurate. - I say it has maximum accuracy in regards to any real world experimental measurements you can find. Please bring on some practical scenario so we can plug in some numbers and I will try to demonstrate. 2.) Maxwell's equations can evaluate the E and B field of a point like charge. - Please demonstrate: electron is moving along x-axis at 25m/s, what is the magnitude of its electric and magnetic field potential in arbitrary direction at distance 'r'. No need to do derivation, just say what equations did you start with and write down what is the final expression for E and B. Can you demonstrate by solving the problem above? Would you say gravity field has curl? If you forget about Maxwell's equations and consider everything else you know about electric fields, electrons and their charge - would you say electric fields have any rotation (curl) and can this curl ever change?

Your phrasing is wrong, which makes what you say ambiguous. Current (motion) is what is induced, E fields are there before and after with their fields unchanged. What changes is relative position and hence RELATIVE electric potential, not the potential of their own electric fields. E field is not "around" electron, it's what electron is and what does not change, it's what defines its charge and all the rest of its electric properties. The "q" symbol in these equations I can call "charge", "electron" or "electric field", and you should know exactly what is it I'm talking about, it can not be anything else because that's what electron is, there is nothing more to it. What part of "simply wrong" did convince you? Please pick some example so I can demonstrate. I have analyzed that, "retarded time" error can not be experimentally confirmed, which directly implies this correction is absolutely unnecessary as we would not be able to verify the difference anyway, but if there is such experiment please let me know. The other thing is that we can always look at these fields from their reference frame, where they are stationary, right? Yes, but I'm saying it is the only way, not just easiest. Maxwell's equations are about WIRES, because of that they lack one whole dimension, behind and in front of the charge.

I do not think your phrasing actually represents what Maxwell's equations are saying, let me correct: WRONG: - Changing B field WILL create an E field CORRECT: - Changing B field MAY create a difference in E potential - induce current (moving magnet around *straight* wire will hardly induce any current) Fields can not be created, that's like saying electrons get created. Charge, electron and electric field is one and the same thing if you look at point particles, there is no electron that is not electric charge which is not electric field, in these equations simply "q". Electron is fundamental particle, the smallest amount of charge (electric field) that can exist, it can not change, disappear or be created in these experiments. Coulomb's law: E = k * q/r^2 Biot-Savart law: B = k * qv x 1/r^2 Anyhow, what I'm saying is wrong as much as these two equations are wrong, I'm just saying what I read from them. Do you see any relation of E field with the B field in Coulomb's law? That's what I said, but it is still not generally in disagreement with 3rd Maxwell's equation as I explained above B can indeed create electric potential by displacing other electrons and hence creating electric current. What I'm saying is that B field can not create any new E field/electron/charge. rotE= - dB/dt Imagine these are two electrons, we are trying to figure out how E of one electron changes as it passes through the dB of the other electron. Do you think this magnetic field can change distribution or the amount of electric charge single electron carry? Do you not agree potential of an electric field is "radial" and that it has no rotation, so do you really think the change in magnitude potential in this magnetic field can indeed make any changes about *rotation* (curl) of the electric field? But most obviously, if electric fields have constant and zero rotation than this equation simply "does not compute".

Ok, thanks. Now I have something to read about, though my dislike for "zero" is general, I do not like to see that value as a result of any measurement. I think zero might not even exist as a number, that's how much I don't like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law -- This page says: -"Gauss's law can be derived from Coulomb's law..", which is to be expected as Coulomb's law describes this field fully, it actually has information about both curl and divergence, and flux and gradient.. everything. Then, that page also says: -"Coulomb's law cannot be derived from Gauss's law alone, since Gauss's law does not give any information regarding the curl of E." -- With this, I believe Wikipedia confirmed my suspicion and completely answered all my questions regarding this 1st equation - Gauss's law - it's really useless until we "cook" it and end up with Coulomb's law, by some magic. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok, so this means that 1st and 2nd equation are about individual field potentials, while 3rd and 4th equations are about at least TWO spatially separated fields, this should be about forces (em interaction, induction), but I'm afraid that can't work without Lorentz force equation. With point charges I do not see any problem to that or anything else. I don't know what to say about your pictures, it helped me find those derivations in Wikipedia and understand it better eventually, thank you, but you ended up twice with some sort of Coulomb's law and have not given one solution for B field, which I guess would look like Biot-Savart law anyway. -- Thanks again, and I do appreciate your help and everyone's involvement, even though we inevitably must disagree, unless I'm terribly wrong, which seems unlikely, to me.

Well, that's quite a pickle actually. Remember Heliocentric system and Galileo, both theories described observation pretty well, yet they were completely opposite. Remember Dirac and Nobel Prize for positron, he was talking about "aether" and "holes" in it, which accurately modeled quite a few experimental observations and predicted positron, and though later *interpretation* changed, "Dirac sea" equation is still valid, aether or not. I agree it sounds impossible to have so much theory matching so many observations and yet have any fundamental misunderstandings about it, but apperantly it is possible. One more example, Broglie–Bohm theory seem to be making valid predictions just like mainstream QM, and it is using some sort of "classical trajectories". I have no idea really, but it does not sound to me as if any momentum is being measured there, indirectly perhaps. Zero angular momentum is very suspicious value to be measured, that's kind of value you also get for "out of range" and other 'unsuccessful' type of measurements.

It behaves like that whenever we can actually see it or measure it, in bubble chambers and electron beams for example. It is only when we can not "see" and properly measure it that we say to not know its motion, which is reasonable, but it is not sufficient argument to refute what is otherwise very usual and commonly observed kind of motion for electrons. Schrödinger equation would work even if trajectories are continuous, you can use it to describe planetary orbitals too. I think that equation can even be used to predict weather, or wash clothes and cook dinner. It would be hard to discredit QM in such way because it is statistical description of the database of many measurements, but that still does not prevent it to have incorrect interpretation of those results and observations, it also does not mean we are not oblivious to some error or whatever we have missed to discover so far. In any case, I do not think 'continuous trajectories' are fundamentally incompatible with QM. Q: If electrons are not continuously "sliding", then they must be moving by the means of "appear-disappear" kind of thing, which seem rather strange as electrons would need to be "nowhere" at certain points in time, so can this be explained and is this what QM thinks is the motion of electrons in atom orbitals?

Ok, thank you. We will eventually need to stick to differential form due to our time stepping algorithm being time integral in itself, beside equations are more illustrative in differential form. Ok, so even after you "cooked" it I still do not see what is just E equal to, that's some 'dot product' there, I do not really see how can we apply either form, and why, oh why just not use Coulomb's law. EXAMPLE: - electron is moving along x-axis at 25m/s, what is the magnitude of its electric field potential in arbitrary direction at distance 'r'. Coulomb's law: E = k * q/r^2 1st equation - Gauss's law: E = ? Do you think you can describe the full 3D shape of a magnetic field of a single moving charge with Gauss's law for magnetism? Can we please stick to differential form, it's not there just for decoration, right? Anyway, that is 'dot product' of B and some stuff, but what is just B equal to? EXAMPLE: - electron is moving along x-axis at 25m/s, what is the magnitude of its magnetic field potential in arbitrary direction at distance 'r'. Biot-Savart law: B = k * qv x 1/r^2 2nd equation - Gauss's law for magnetism: B = ? Are you actually saying these equations can not be used before we apply stokes theorem, gaussian surfaces and get them in integral form first? So, the 3rd equation defines dB/dt with 4th equation, and then 4th equation defines dE/dt with 3rd equation, is that not self-referencing and circular definition? EXAMPLE: - electron is moving along x-axis at 25m/s, what is the magnitude of its electric and magnetic field potential in arbitrary direction at distance 'r'. Coulomb's law: E = k * q/r^2 Biot-Savart law: B = k * qv x 1/r^2 3rd equation - Maxwell–Faraday: E = ? 4th equation - Ampère's circuital law: B = ?

Hello, I've seen some of Vuquta's previous threads and I believe this is his website:http://www.proofofabsolutemotion.com/intro.html -- I have to say I agree with the point Vuquta is making. In my view, there is no real disagreement in what most of you and he was saying, it's just that he talks about something else too that no one else is really addressing and I believe to have a solution to his "paradox", so both he and SR can be right in the same time. I think his point is most obvious from those animation and java applets on that web page above, but let me try to rephrase and illustrate in my way how I see this problem and what I still do not understand. X________________ moving | observer | | ---> v (moving speed train) photon | ^________________| X________________ ^ moving | ^ ^ observer | d1 ^ ^ | ---> v ^ ^d2 | ^ ^________________| ---------------standing observers see d1, passengers see d2 ...however, if photons are to retain their speed of light for all frames, if that speed is to be independent of the movement of object that emitted it which means NO HORIZONTAL MOMENTUM for this photon, then it must miss the target. If it was a bullet then it would have this horizontal momentum and it will hit the target, but photon actually has to miss it, right? How can it "know" it has to move horizontally (as well) if it can not be impacted with this sideways momentum like a bullet would? Solution, then... X________________ moving | observer | | ---> v photon | ^________________| X________________ ^ moving | ^ observes | ^d1 | ---> v ^ d1=d2 | ^ . _______________| ---------------standing observers see d1, passengers see d1 ...and so the speed of light is constant and same in all frames. What I do not understand in this whole story is what is the SR's prediction or measurement for this case scenario really supposed to be? I always thought SR is actually saying something like this anyway.

Hello, I'm a computer programmer and although I do have education in classical physics including electrical courses and as well as practical experience with assembly and testing of UV radiation equipment, their power supplies and overall wiring, I'm surprised to realize I have no idea what is the purpose, derivation (experimental origin) and the meaning of Maxwell's equations as I can not recall to have used any of them for anything. This realization happened when I was supposed to simulate - model and visualize in 3D - the simplest electromagnetic interaction there is, between electric and magnetic fields from only two electrons/positrons, including the tracing of their individual shape/intensity. Everyone referred me to Maxwell's equations, but - to cut the story short - after much trouble, search and experimenting I had to conclude Maxwell's equations are simply useless for this. They seemed far too specific in relation to experimental setups with wires and permanent magnets, and so they seemed to lack much of the information required to solve any such general case with individual free charges. I found a solution via Coulomb's law, Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force, I also found I have complete information of these EM field potentials in those equations, including their field "density" or magnitude distribution and geometry, and as well as description of force vectors and not only field vectors, I found that these "older" equations incorporate far more general and complete information about electromagnetic fields and forces. Well, that is my surprising conclusion anyway, so of course I'm looking for some explanation and hopefully someone here is very familiar with Maxwell's equations so can explain my misunderstandings and say something about their actual implications - what they mean, what they describe, how was it derived and how to apply them to practical situations. TO BE MORE SPECIFIC: 1. Gauss's law: divE= p/e0 - When do we use this equation? How to get rid of the divergence operator so to solve for just E, and would that be a vector or scalar quantity? Divergence of E field according to Coulomb's law is zero, it has uniform magnitude gradient dropping off with inverse square law, does that not mean divE=0? 2. Gauss's law for magnetism: divB= 0 - According to Biot-Savart law which actually describes this magnetic field potential for point charges, *not wires*, this field is toroidal, its magnitude falls off with inverse square law in perpendicular plane to velocity vector (current direction), but it also falls with the angle according to vector cross product, so at the end it looks like doughnut (toroid/torus) and not like a "ball" of an electric field. This actually means that divergence of this particular magnetic field 'due to moving charge' (this is not intrinsic magnetic dipole moment), has non zero divergence and non zero rotation (curl). Yes, if you take an infinite wire then divB=0, but that does not say anything about individual fields, it is very specific case that does not reveal anything about how individual magnetic fields look in front and behind that 90 degree plane, it is very crude approximation and hence lacks information. -- Let's say divB=0, then what is just B equal to? I do not see any information about B field here, so where and when do we ever use this equation? 3. Maxwell–Faraday equation: rotE= - dB/dt - According to Coulomb's law E field has no rotation (curl), it is more of a "radial" kind of thing, so what in the world can this mean if we get rid of the curl operator and solve for just E? How can 'curl of E' tell us anything if 'curl of E' is always supposed to be constant and zero? What does "dB" refer to? a.) to second equation: rotE= - (divB= 0)/dt ? b.) to fourth equation: rotE= - (rotB= J + dE/dt)/dt ? c.) to Biot-Savart law: rotE= - (B= k qv x 1/r^2)/dt ? d.) something else? 4. Ampère's circuital law: rotB= J + dE/dt - What do we get when we get rid of the curl, how to do it, and what just B then equals to? What J equals to? What "dE" refers to, 1st equation, 3rd equation, Coulomb's law? Are these equations for just one field or do they require at least two like Coulomb's law has Q1 and Q2 and Newton's gravity has M1 and M2? Does rotB, J and dE refer to the fields (potential difference) of one and the same particle, or rotB refers to one field and dE to separate another field? And also, 3rd and 4th equations appear to be kind of 'circular definition' and self-referencing, but hopefully answers to previous question will explain this. In addition, what is the full and exact meaning of "changing electric field causes... B" or "varying magnetic field produces... E". How can E or B field vary if you look at only one charge (electron) or two? Can E potential of individual charges actually change and can there be a creation of any new magnetic or electric potential (new fields)? Thank you.