Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Maxwell Equations as axioms and what they give us #1215 New Physics
#1335 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 10, 2013 4:29 AM
|
|
What does the Maxwell Equations as axioms give
for physics? Well, they guide us completely and tell us if we are on a
true path or just lost in worthless imagination.
Tonight I spent some time reviewing what I had learned some 43 years
ago, the Ampere law and how it was derived.
This is an endeavor that I think every physicist should engage in
their life. To review and relearn the Maxwell Equations when older
from when young. If a physicist never does that, I feel they never
really learned the equations in the first place. And when you learn
them at age 19, the motivation is too much passing the test, whereas
at age 63, it is for pure curiosity and desire to know.
Now I made plenty of mistakes in this edition of the book which a 6th
edition will have to clear out. And if I am smart enough, I should
start the 6th edition as soon as I finish this 5th to remember what to
delete and what to enhance. However, I want to do the geology book
next. So I am going to prepare myself for the 6th edition by leaving
notes behind.
I need to pare down the chapters of the double transverse wave,
because I need to have the longitudinal wave discussed more fully. I
need to pare down also the chapters on spin, rest-mass, charge, speed
since the Maxwell Equations themselves are the lowest foundation. It
is tempting to get caught up in imagination of the electron or proton
or photon or neutrino and to imagine things which are not true,
because the Maxwell Equations do not support those ideas.
But two ideas that the Maxwell Equations do support is the
longitudinal wave and the neutrino in the Equations. So tonight I
reviewed how Halliday and Resnick derived the Ampere law. I do not
think Ampere himself derived his law in the manner of H&R. On pages
714 to 720 of Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, they use the argument of
charge == electric field == charge
and then they conveniently replace it with
current == magnetic field == current
Using the Coulomb law of inverse square, they derive the Biot-Savart
law.
And finally using the experimental evidence that parallel currents
attract and antiparallel currents repel, they derive the Ampere law.
So now, I need two things, two items. I need the longitudinal wave in
the Maxwell Equations and I need the neutrino. The neutrino is proven
to exist from experiments, but I need the Maxwell Equations to show
that neutrinos are in those equations.
When the neutron decays in beta decay, there is a neutrino involved
and in order for several conservation laws to be obeyed, the neutrino
must have a 1/2 spin. A double transverse wave is not a 1/2 spin, but
a longitudinal wave is 1/2 spin.
Now spin is not a concept we can ever picture clearly because it is a
primitive concept of the Maxwell Equations. So we have to be content
with
just saying "spin".
So, does the Maxwell Equations have a longitudinal wave? The answer is
clearly yes, because in reviewing the Faraday law, it is derived from
emf =
-N dB/dt. The emf must be voltage and must be a longitudinal wave for
it is a compression with rarefaction. A transverse wave is not
compression with rarefaction.
So the Faraday law gives us a longitudinal wave. Does that make sense
and agreement with the neutrino as a longitudinal wave? Of course it
does because, like a sound wave, a neutrino penetrates matter as if it
were nonexistent, and sound waves travel best where there is dense
matter.
Now the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations have a displacement current in
the Ampere law and a magnetic current density (displacement magnetism)
in the Faraday law. Now are these displacements, are they neutrinos?
It is likely that the magnetic displacement in Faraday's law, those
magnetic monopoles are neutrinos, or the medium through which
neutrinos travel.
I was studying Ampere law derivation to see if I could link up with
north monopole and south monopole. As H&R derive Ampere's law, they
have to use the fact that parallel currents attract and antiparallel
repel. So, is that saying that a north magnetic monopole attracts a
south magnetic monopole and like poles repel?
So in deriving the Ampere law, are we really just using magnetic
monopoles to reach the law.
Now I need to review permittivity and permeability, because I have the
impression that one of them has to be associated with a longitudinal
wave whereas the other has to be a transverse wave.
What I am hunting down, is a longitudinal wave in the Maxwell
Equations that travels the speed of light, and is the neutrino and is
magnetic monopoles.
If I am correct, then Dirac, hunting for magnetic monopoles, really
did not have to look far and wide, because if they are neutrinos, then
Dirac lived when the neutrino = magnetic monopoles were discovered. He
just did not know that the magnetic monopole is as plentiful as the
neutrino.
So let me end here with a intriguing question tonight. Does it make
sense that the Neutron is composed
of proton, electron, neutrino? Or does it make better sense that the
neutron is composed of proton, electron, and magnetic monopoles? Now
we have some neutrons called halo neutrons. Could it be that halo
neutrons are say north-pole magnetic monopoles that causes those
neutrons to orbit around the nucleus in a halo?
--
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years 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
|
|
|
|
