On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:





"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written. Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible) analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"<SNIP

Displacement current exists as a mathematical term @D/@dt =

epsilon@E@dt. The idea that it generates a magnetic field is the myth,
right?

Of course. Displacement Current as a mathematical entity exists. It is
nothing more nor less than the rate of change of the E field WRT time.

The physical meaning is that -- as the E field changes -- the velocity and
position of (nearby) charges will also vary. It is the movement of those
charges that causes the magnetic field.

Bill

SNIP

"maxwell" <spsi@shaw.ca> wrote
news:1187449795.389881.220960@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com
wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya
think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not
enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written.
Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible)
analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.

So we have the two displacement currents: (See:
http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersWritersExcerpt.asp?excerptId=42 -
my English is not such as should be so I use citations)

1. "These waves were theoretically discovered by Maxwell after he added a
single new mathematical term, called the "displacement current," to the
equations of electricity and magnetism previously worked out by others.
How did Maxwell deduce his hypothetical displacement current? When I first
learned the theory of electricity and magnetism as a college physics
major, I thought that the displacement current had been derived by
requiring mathematical consistency and the conservation of electric
charge."

This one still exist in the math phisycs for the currents in circuits.
This should be replaced by the gas analogy.

2. "When an electric force oscillated in time, the electric particles in
the elastic medium oscillated in response, giving rise to the so-called
displacement current. The underlying elastic medium that allowed all of
this to happen was called "ether." The ether was the material substance
through which electromagnetic waves propagated, just as air is the
substance through which sound waves propagate, by bumping one air molecule
into the next. Again, in Maxwell's words, "We have therefore some reason
to believe, from the phenomena of light and heat, that there is an
aetheral medium filling space and permeating bodies, capable of being set
in motion and of transmitting that motion from one part to another."
Maxwell's mechanical model for electricity and magnetism, including the
ether, was completely fictitious, but it led him to the correct
equations."

This one is for space. It is too early to discuse eather.

"Don't you think it's past time to go back and check his work?"
S*

On 18 Aug, 17:06, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
"<SNIP

Displacement current exists as a mathematical term @D/@dt =

epsilon@E@dt. The idea that it generates a magnetic field is the myth,
right?

Of course. Displacement Current as a mathematical entity exists. It is
nothing more nor less than the rate of change of the E field WRT time.

The physical meaning is that -- as the E field changes -- the velocity
and
position of (nearby) charges will also vary. It is the movement of those
charges that causes the magnetic field.

I'm think it's more fundamental: To change the E field due to a static
charge configuration, you have to move what was static charge to new
positions, which means they will generate a magnetic field as they are
moved. So as you say, it is the movement of charge that generates the
magnetic field - the same charge that generated the E field in the
first place.

Regards, Blackhead.

Bill

SNIP

YES!

1. "These waves were theoretically discovered by Maxwell after he
added a single new mathematical term, called the "displacement
current," to the equations of electricity and magnetism previously
worked out by others. How did Maxwell deduce his hypothetical
displacement current? When I first learned the theory of electricity
and magnetism as a college physics major, I thought that the
displacement current had been derived by requiring mathematical
consistency and the conservation of electric charge."

On 18 Aug, 16:09, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:



On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written. Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible) analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the cutting-edge view is that EM theory is based upon Coulombs
law and relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if Poincare, Lorentz and
Einsten first emphasised the idea, and I think Minkowski mentions it
at the end of his paper on Space and Time. So the idea has been around
for over 100 years.

No, before the trip an experiment must be devised and performed that shows
that there is no displacement current.

On Aug 18, 10:05 am, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:





On 18 Aug, 16:09, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written. Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible) analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the cutting-edge view is that EM theory is based upon Coulombs
law and relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if Poincare, Lorentz and
Einsten first emphasised the idea, and I think Minkowski mentions it
at the end of his paper on Space and Time. So the idea has been around
for over 100 years.

This is a circular argument. Einstein's SR was based on Maxwell's EM
but all he needed was a wave equation with a constant phase velocity
(c) that was invariant wrt different fixed velocity frames (for which
there is no evidence except Maxwell's equations). Coulomb's Law is a
quasi-static 'law' that has never been demonstrated for electrons
because the damn things won't stay still - it was just Coulomb's
theoretical effort to produce an analogue of Newton's gravitational
law.- Hide quoted text -

Here is how Maxwell came up with "displacement current" in his paper "On
Physical Lines of Force".

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

Coulomb's Law is a
quasi-static 'law' that has never been demonstrated for electrons
because the damn things won't stay still

theoretical effort to produce an analogue of Newton's gravitational
law.

"FrediFizzx"

No, before the trip an experiment must be devised and performed that
shows that there is no displacement current.

It would be no problem with devising. But who perform such?
S*
Take a look at "Conduction current and the magnetic field in a circular

On 19 Aug, 16:32, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:



On Aug 18, 10:05 am, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

On 18 Aug, 16:09, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written. Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible) analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the cutting-edge view is that EM theory is based upon Coulombs
law and relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if Poincare, Lorentz and
Einsten first emphasised the idea, and I think Minkowski mentions it
at the end of his paper on Space and Time. So the idea has been around
for over 100 years.

This is a circular argument. Einstein's SR was based on Maxwell's EM
but all he needed was a wave equation with a constant phase velocity
(c) that was invariant wrt different fixed velocity frames (for which
there is no evidence except Maxwell's equations). Coulomb's Law is a
quasi-static 'law' that has never been demonstrated for electrons
because the damn things won't stay still - it was just Coulomb's
theoretical effort to produce an analogue of Newton's gravitational
law.- Hide quoted text -

I think we both agree that Coulomb's law is true in the static test
charge case, but how do they make the claim that it's true for the
relativistic test charge case? As you say, they will have a hell of a
time keeping the charges reponsible for the "static" field from
reacting to the test charge and so creating magnetic effects. They
must monitor the current and so subtract magnetic effects from the
final result.

- Show quoted text -

"maxwell"



Coulomb's Law is a
quasi-static 'law' that has never been demonstrated for electrons
because the damn things won't stay still

Electrons are not marked. You can make a thought (and real) experiments with
the gradient of electrons. No matter which one is in given place.

- it was just Coulomb's

theoretical effort to produce an analogue of Newton's gravitational
law.

What was the result?
S*
The realist view (in contrast to the Positivists) is that the world

On Aug 19, 11:04 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
"maxwell"



Coulomb's Law is a
quasi-static 'law' that has never been demonstrated for electrons
because the damn things won't stay still

Electrons are not marked. You can make a thought (and real)
experiments with
the gradient of electrons. No matter which one is in given place.

- it was just Coulomb's

theoretical effort to produce an analogue of Newton's gravitational
law.

What was the result?
S*
The realist view (in contrast to the Positivists) is that the world
carries on very nicely whether we humans try to observe or measure
it. Since we can't theoretically solve the two-electron problem
'classically' (i.e. just using Maxwell's theory), never mind with QED,
then how can you say we can confirm Coulomb's 'Law' with even 2
electrons? (see my reply to Fred above). If you have to ask your last
question then you didn't finish high school physics.

On Aug 19, 10:32 am, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:





On 19 Aug, 16:32, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Aug 18, 10:05 am, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

On 18 Aug, 16:09, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written. Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible) analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the cutting-edge view is that EM theory is based upon Coulombs
law and relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if Poincare, Lorentz and
Einsten first emphasised the idea, and I think Minkowski mentions it
at the end of his paper on Space and Time. So the idea has been around
for over 100 years.

This is a circular argument. Einstein's SR was based on Maxwell's EM
but all he needed was a wave equation with a constant phase velocity
(c) that was invariant wrt different fixed velocity frames (for which
there is no evidence except Maxwell's equations). Coulomb's Law is a
quasi-static 'law' that has never been demonstrated for electrons
because the damn things won't stay still - it was just Coulomb's
theoretical effort to produce an analogue of Newton's gravitational
law.- Hide quoted text -

I think we both agree that Coulomb's law is true in the static test
charge case, but how do they make the claim that it's true for the
relativistic test charge case? As you say, they will have a hell of a
time keeping the charges reponsible for the "static" field from
reacting to the test charge and so creating magnetic effects. They
must monitor the current and so subtract magnetic effects from the
final result.

- Show quoted text -

I doubt Coulomb's 'Law' is even valid in the static limit (whatever
that means). At best, it is valid only in the large charge
statistical limit. I strongly suspect Coulomb just guessed at this as
his measurements were of insufficient accuracy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -