[General] Maxwell's

Sun Nov 5 05:32:24 PST 2017

Hi Hodge,

My own interpretation is that charges are the capital part of electromagnetism in relation with the Coulomb force, the wheels on the axel, so to speak.

Richard's localized photon structure makes quite a bit of sense and adresses coherently many issues, particularly polarization, in 4D space geometry specifically because he incorporates a pair of charges and invoques the Coulomb force in his description. 

I have been thinking a long time about the Coulomb force and what it could be. Its assumed infinite speed in particular never made any sense to me.

I have a paper that just passed peer-review and should be available in a few weeks that describes the current state of my analysis in this regard. I will quote only part of the pertaining section here for consistency, but even then, some will no doubt appear disconnected because taken out of context:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Considerations on the possible origin of the momentum related translational kinetic energy that propels elementary charged particles such as electrons lead to observe that at the submicroscopic level, kinetic energy is induced in these particles exclusively as a function of the distance separating them. It is also well verified that the only known force able to induce kinetic energy in free moving charged particles is the well known Coulomb force.

>From observations made at our macroscopic level, the traditional concept of "force" was historically established by Newton as a mutual action between two massive bodies, in the sense that "when a body exerts a force on a second body, the second body always exerts a force on the first". Newton established this conclusion as his third law of motion, stating that the mutual actions of two massive bodies on each other are always equal.

Considering each of these bodies separately, the force is then defined as being the interaction that changes the momentum of a body as a function of the time that this interaction is applied to it. This led to defining force as the product of the mass of a body by its acceleration, that is, its changing velocity (F=ma); and to define its momentum at any given instant as the product of its mass by its instantaneous velocity (p=mv).

This observed "apparent attraction" as a function of the inverse square of the distance between massive bodies that are not in contact with each other, then resulted in force being directly related to a natural increase in translational momentum of the body, without any immediate need to refer to the simultaneousness of the increase of its translational kinetic energy as a function of the diminishing distance between the bodies involved, which is obtained by multiplying the force by the distance between the bodies at any given moment, since acceleration is represented by the squared momentary velocity divided by the corresponding instantaneous distance (a=v2/r), which results in the total amount of energy momentarily induced in the body at this specific distance to be (E=mv2), a total amount of induced kinetic energy that Leibnitz considered the real effect of application of a force, a quantity which incidentally is twice the amount associated with the translational momentum (p), which on its part is traditionally calculated by replacing (v) by (p/m) in the classical kinetic energy equation (K=mv2/2), giving (K= p2/2m).

>From the relativistic perspective, the reason for the difference between these two energy measuring methods is that (E=γmov2) also includes the induced energy that converts to the velocity related momentary relativistic mass increment that was transversally measured by Walter Kauffman when he deflected relativistically moving electrons in a bubble chamber at the turn of the 20th century, and that was established by Paul Marmet as corresponding to the relativistic magnetic mass increment, while (K=γmov2/2) provides only the correct amount of momentum related translational kinetic energy that sustains the velocity of the total relativistic mass, that is, an amount of unidirectional kinetic energy that turns out by structure to correspond to exactly half of the total amount of kinetic energy that must be induced in the electron in excess of its invariant rest mass energy for it to move at the corresponding relativistic velocity.

It must be put in perspective that these definitions, quite useful at our macroscopic level when applied to massive macroscopic bodies, were established before it was discovered that the force in action between charged elementary particles actually induces kinetic energy in these particles due to the fact that they are electrically charged, so in the absence of this information discovered later, the same definitions of force and momentum were applied by default to the Coulomb force as applicable to these elementary massive subcomponents of atoms, without taking into account that besides their mass, they also possess an electrical charge, which is precisely the characteristic related to energy induction in electromagnetism.

The Coulomb force was thus defined in the following manner:

"The force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.".  

But deep analysis of the Coulomb force in light of the internal electromagnetic energy structure of the carrying energy amounts induced in charged particles such as electrons and positrons revealed in the trispatial geometry, and of the variation of these amounts as distances vary between charged particles, reveals that the force itself does not directly attract nor repel in the manner that it is currently defined to operate, but that it only adiabatically induces kinetic energy in electrically charged elementary particles, and that it is the unidirectional momentum related component of this adiabatic kinetic energy that vectorially orients itself to cause charged particles to translationally tend to move toward each other in case of opposite signs charges, or away from each other in case of same sign charges, when the particles are not captive in the various stable electromagnetic resonance equilibrium states allowed in atomic structures, states into which this translational motion is hindered even if the momentum related kinetic energy still remains adiabatically induced.

This brings to light that the Coulomb force would not really be a "force of attraction or repulsion" as traditionally defined, but would rather be a "force of adiabatic kinetic energy induction" that would adiabatically and continuously induce kinetic energy in elementary charged particles, whether they are moving or not, which would make this force a "yet-to-be-correctly-understood-active-agent" that would be universally ambient in the background, so to speak, and consequently that it would not need to travel at any velocity to simultaneously act on all existing charged particles in the universe, but would only increase or decrease the amounts of this adiabatically induced kinetic energy in an infinitesimally progressive manner whenever charged particles happen to be in distance varying motion with respect to each other.

Moreover, Marmet's discovery and the observation confirmed by the Kaufmann experiment that half of any carrying energy quantum induced in electrons converts to mass, reveal that not only does the Coulomb force induce the momentum related translational energy of elementary charged particles, it also induces actual mass, made up of the electromagnetically oscillating other half of the induced carrying energy. 

>From this perspective, and given that this carrying kinetic energy needs to be induced in charged particles "before" any related motion can becomes possible, this means that no motion of the charged particles is required for the Coulomb force to adiabatically induce kinetic energy in them as a function of the distance, and that this energy remains induced even if the related velocity is prevented from being expressed when the particles are captive in stationary orbital resonance states, which are states of induced momentum kinetic energy that the classical concept of momentum, thus also of the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian, clearly do not account for since its related translational velocity is then forcibly reduced to zero, or averages out to zero for electrons captive in such axial resonance states.

In light of these considerations, a tentatively more precise definition of the Coulomb force could be formulated in the following manner, for example:

"The Coulomb force adiabatically and continuously induces kinetic energy in elementary charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them, thus inducing in each charged particle an accompanying energy quantum whose unidirectional half is vectorially oriented so that charged particles tend to close in on each other if they have opposite signs charges, and move away from each other if they have identical sign charges, when not captive in the various resonance states allowed in atoms, and to apply pressure in these vectorial directions when their motion is inhibited by local electromagnetic equilibrium states."

So from the submicroscopic perspective, it would then appear that it is not the macroscopic bodies themselves that are subject to a force, but the individual charged and massive point-like behaving electromagnetic elementary particles whose sum of masses makes up the total masses of macroscopic bodies, and that the only force that can act on them would be by structure the so-called "Coulomb force", which would then not be an attractive and repulsive force as initially defined by similarity with the apparent inverse square attraction force between macroscopic masses that was the only possible interpretation in Newton's time, but would rather be an underlying "adiabatic-kinetic-energy-inducing-yet-to-be-correctly-understood-active-agent", that we name the "Coulomb force", which could be by very nature permanently and statically present in the universe and in permanent action between all charged elementary particles in existence. 

This means that the kinetic energy induced in any pair of charged particles is inversely proportional to the distance separating them irrespective of the time elapsed, if they are maintained at a fixed distance from each other, and that it adiabatically varies in both particles if they are in motion relative to each other, irrespective of their relative velocity and irrespective of the time elapsed during the corresponding motion sequence.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There is more in the paper about the Coulomb force, but it would make no sense at all out of context.

As for re-deriving Maxwell's equations from experiments, as you mention, they were derived from experiment.

Seems to me that they could easily be re-derived. We have even more data at our disposal than when they were defiened by Gauss, Faraday and Ampere.

But why re-derive them from experiment since the job is already done? 

Best Regards
---

André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 09:38:45 +0000 (UTC), Hodge John  wrote:

Andre

I was intrigued by your reference to kinetic energy.

Maxwell's equations are held virtually unimpeachable in today's environment. They were derived from several experiments. The assumption of these interpretations was that a charge is the primal source of the phenomena. This leads to Chip's model. But the Stern-Gerlack experiment and the infinite speed of the coulomb experiment present problems.

So the question of kinetic energy transforms into the interpretation of Maxwell's equation experiments. Suppose the acting element/photon/electron were a magnet. That is, a photon is a magnet when moving produces the electric field that travels laterally at infinite speed.

The issue then becomes to re-derive Maxwell's equations from the experiments.

Hodge

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171105/cd5cff89/attachment.html>