Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Chapt15.54 generalization of the Maxwell Eq and deriving Darwin
Evolution #1301 New Physics #1504 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 8   Last Post: Apr 21, 2013 5:16 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
does CurlxB need to be negative signed? Chapt15.54 Maxwell Eq
deriving Darwin Evolution & Superdeterminism #1304 New Physics #1507 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Apr 20, 2013 1:13 AM

Alright, before I tackle how to derive Superdeterminism and then
derive Darwin Evolution, since Superdeterminism itself derives Darwin
Evolution (Darwin Evolution is a subset of Superdeterminism), I have
to patch up a few loose ends of the Maxwell Equations.

I suspect there needs a slight correction to the Maxwell Equations
with magnetic monopoles.

Here are the Maxwell Equations with magnetic monopoles.

div*E = r_E
div*B = r_B
- curlxE = dB + J_B
curlxB = dE + J_E

Now there are two important features that need to be addressed to see
if the above are the correct 4 Maxwell Equations.

The first is Double Transverse Wave of the photon, of the light-wave.
Does the above 4 Maxwell Equations give us the fact that light-waves
are Double Transverse Waves? The answer is yes, because of the fact of
a magnetic monopoles existing that we can no longer have a single
transverse wave for light for it would be
E
B

and that does not assure that light speed is a constant regardless of
wavelength or frequency.

Only with Double Transverse Wave by destructive-interference is light
a constant regardless of wavelength or frequency and is depicted as
such:

E-
M+ M-
E+
So by simply doing nothing to the 4 Maxwell Equations containing
magnetic monopoles, we are assured of Double Transverse Wave. Because
the sheer existence of magnetic monopoles demands them to occupy those
positions of symmetry.

But, that leaves us with the second major concern, a serious concern
and not so easily resolved as Double Transverse Wave. The concern is
that in EM-gravity, the magnetic monopoles have only an attractive
force, never a repulsive force as the electric charge has with like
charges. So in the magnetic monopoles added nonzero term to Gauss's
law of magnetism and to the added term of Faraday's law of a magnetic
current density term, the question here is whether the above 4 Maxwell
Equations have only an attractive force for magnetic monopoles, or
have I forgotten to place a negative sign in Gauss's law of magnetism
or the term in Faraday's law of magnetic current density.

Do I get a attractive force only when the Maxwell Equations are
written as the above or do I need a new negative sign somewhere to
denote that the Magnetic Monopoles are only attractive.

I think, as a guess, that I need another negative sign, and I think I
need it on the Ampere/Maxwell law of CurlxB, for not only would it
make the 4 Equations totally symmetrical, but would solve this dilemma
of having the magnetic monopoles attractive force only.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author-archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies