Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 8,731
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
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


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


Date Subject Author
4/18/13
Read Chapt15.54 generalization of the Maxwell Eq and deriving Darwin
Evolution #1301 New Physics #1504 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/18/13
Read Darwin Evolution derived by generalized Maxwell Equations Chapt15.54
generalization of the Maxwell Eq and deriving Darwin Evolution #1302 New
Physics #1505 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/19/13
Read Chapt15.54 Maxwell Eq deriving Darwin Evolution & Superdeterminism
#1303 New Physics #1506 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/19/13
Read Re: Chapt15.54 Maxwell Eq deriving Darwin Evolution &
Superdeterminism #1303 New Physics #1506 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
4/20/13
Read does CurlxB need to be negative signed? Chapt15.54 Maxwell Eq
deriving Darwin Evolution & Superdeterminism #1304 New Physics #1507 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/20/13
Read does the magnetic current density make for attraction-only?
Chapt15.54 Maxwell Eq deriving Darwin Evolution & Superdeterminism #1305 New
Physics #1508 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/20/13
Read resolving magnetic monopole with dipole Chapt15.55 the 5th Maxwell
Equation #1306 New Physics #1509 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/21/13
Read 5th new Maxwell Equation, - div*M = 0 , where 137/2(M) = 1(e)
Chapt15.55 #1307 New Physics #1510 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
4/21/13
Read fine-structure physical evidence for the 3rd Coulomb force - div*M =
E Chapt15.55 #1308 New Physics #1511 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.