Are Maxwell's equations physically false?

[Idiot]

Physical science assumes that the Maxwell's equations are physically correct.
These equations provide the theoretical basis for all the derived Quantum Mechanics-formulas.

When one assumes Maxwell's equations are valid the electromagnetic fields must be conservative fields; which implicitly means the electromagnetic fields must also be radial.

However the article `The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy` http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_ ... iv2ckw.pdf proves in section 4. `The Electromagnetic Mass` that the electromagnetic field is not radial and therefore cannot be a conservative field.

When the electromagnetic field is not a conservative field all the derived formulas of QM are physically impossible. This means that all QM formulas loose any theoretical significance.

The mathematical resp. experimental significance of the derived QM/formulas is undisputable despite they do not posses any theoretical validity.

I want to know what is false in the article `The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy`section 4. `The Electromagnetic Mass`, because if this article is correct QM cannot be a valid theory of physics because than QM constantly violates the energy conservation law.

[StevenO]

Hi,

Don't worry. Maxwell's equations are the best verified equations in physics All progress in electronics directly depend on them.
The issue with the paper is that the properties of electrons can only be described by their collective behaviour. We cannot draw conclusions about the behaviour of single electron.

Steven

[Idiot]

I wish it is that simple.

The electrostatic and the magnetic fields behave like vector fields, because the resulting field at a certain point is the vector summation of the individual fields.
That electrostatic- and magnetic fields behave like vector fields is not proof that the electromagnetic field is a conservative field.

In the previous mentioned article it is demonstrated that the assumption by QM that the electromagnetic field of a moving charge is radial must be false, because this assumption results in a violation of the energy conservation law (the mentioned section 4 The Electromagnetic Mass).

When the energy conservation law is violated the presented physics is invalid.

In chapter 28 Electromagnetic Mass of Lectures on Physics Volume II by Feynman the field momentum is diminished with sin(teta)^2 because QM assumes the field is radial. It appears however that this assumption violates the energy conservation law and therefore the radial characteristics of the electromagnetic field must be incorrect. Therefore the field cannot be conservative. For verification I refer to the links below.

Electromagnetic Mass Lectures on Physics Volume II, Feynman
Chapter 28-1 http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.1.bmp
Chapter 28-2 http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.2.bmp
Chapter 28-3 http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.3.bmp
Chapter 28-3 http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.4.bmp

[StefanR]

It's seems to me that what you are describing is more a problem of QM than of Maxwell.
And as QM is not reconcilable with GR and GR and Maxwell have no problems in that way (as long as one keeps
in mind the realm of application, and I mean by that the v=c realm), I think one has to wonder what the
absolute validity of QM can be. Of course QM can be a tool to appraoch problems, I personally doubt that
a theory which is full of postulations and non-causal extensions has much value. It was Max Planck with his discovery of quanta that created a crises in physics.
It was also Einstein who denied the possibility that a field theory could help us understand the atomistic and quantum stucture of reality, but only under contention that at that time nobody knew anything reliable about it. That denial
can be justified because the field desciption according to Maxwell is by no means able to to form structure so that it is not possible for quanta to appear as consequence.
Maybe the above problems of causality can be solved, but only if the Maxwell theory is reworked to a pure field theory. The well-known formulation offends aginst the claim of causality , since it is field and quantum theory at the same time. To Maxwell himself the quanta where still unknown, but today it is recognized that the fourth Maxwell equation is quantum equation (Div D = Pel) . Whereby the electric field is asource field whereby the individual charge carriers act as sources to form in their sum the space charge density. The other Maxwell equations are pure wave equations.
For a complete duality from the existence of electric monopoles, individual in the space charge density Pel contained charge carriers, the claim for magnetic monopoles is derived. In spite of intensive search such north or south pole particles however until now could not be found. Herein, from a critical point of view, is seen a confirmation for the assumption that Maxwell's theory is self-contained and hence in principle may not be extended. The critics have a problem of causality as they postulate source fields that at the same time should be vortex fields. But if one asks how one should imagine such a field that is scalar and at the same time vectorial, then it looks as if no one has ever made any thoughts about it.
The from causality derived solution of the problem of lacking duality requires to extend the Maxwell theory in one point, the introduction of the the potential vortex of the electric field and at the same time a cut in another place; Div D = 0.
With this formulation, the assumption of a freedom of sources in principle, the complete duality is reached. Now neither magnetic nor electric monopoles exist.
The loss of the electron seems to make it the problem worse, but that is truly seemingly, as by the exchange of vortices for particles, the quanta can be banned from the field theoretical approach, and the suggestion arises that elementary particles are nothing else than spherical vortices having a physical reality of their own.

[Idiot]

It's seems to me that what you are describing is more a problem of QM than of Maxwell.

Science has accepted Maxwell's equations. These formulas describe the physics of a possible electromagnetic field and a possible interaction between electrostatic- and magnetic fields.

Maxwell' equations implicitly assume that the electromagnetic field is radial. So when it is proven that the electromagnetic field is not radial Maxwell' equations loose their physical vadility. Because QM is based on (the correctness of) Maxwell's equations QM also becomes an invalid theory when Maxwell's equations are physically false.

So as long as the mentioned article is not disqualified the article is for both, Maxwell and QM, desastreus .

[StevenO]

It's seems to me that what you are describing is more a problem of QM than of Maxwell.

Science has accepted Maxwell's equations. These formulas describe the physics of a possible electromagnetic field and a possible interaction between electrostatic- and magnetic fields.

Maxwell' equations implicitly assume that the electromagnetic field is radial. So when it is proven that the electromagnetic field is not radial Maxwell' equations loose their physical vadility. Because QM is based on (the correctness of) Maxwell's equations QM also becomes an invalid theory when Maxwell's equations are physically false.

So as long as the mentioned article is not disqualified the article is for both, Maxwell and QM, desastreus .

The Feynman chapters that you refer to actually start with the explanation that the physics laws fall on their face when trying to consider the particles in isolation, e.g. because one would have to start dealing with infinite energies.

Maxwell' equations implicitly assume that the electromagnetic field is radial

I have seen most textbooks use that to simplify their pictures, but could you please explain this, since I have a hard time finding it. The equations describe the relation between potential and current density. The field descriptions are a derivative of that, comparable to e.g. contour lines on a map.

[Idiot]

The Feynman chapters that you refer to actually start with the explanation that the physics laws fall on their face when trying to consider the particles in isolation, e.g. because one would have to start dealing with infinite energies.

In 28-1 The field energy of a point charge http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.1.bmp Feynman argues that one cannot calculate the field energy of a point charge with the Electromagnetic Theory (EM) because when the charge is infinite small there will be a singularity. This is according to QM the weak point of EM. With EM a charged particle must have some dimensions, otherwise a singularity cannot be avoided.
In 28-2 The field momentum of a moving charge http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.2.bmp Feynman analyses the dynamic mass of a charge when that charge is not a point charge; not infinite small. Feynman tries to calculate the electromagnetic mass of a moving charged sphere.
We know from experience that magnetic and electrostatic fields behave vector-like. The resulting field at a certain point is the vector summation of all individual fields at that point. This vector-like behaviour is however not proof that these fields are in all aspects vector-fields.

Feynman argues that the electric field is radial and the magnetic field is the vector product of the speed and electric field. This argumentation results in diminishing the momentum density g with sin^2(teta).
This correction by Feynman is according to QM allowed because the momentum density g is the vector product of the electrostatic and magnetic field.
The utmost important question to be answered now is whether the momentum density g is really the result of the assumed vector product. Feynman resp. QM assume this is true. However when we analyse the integration of the momentum density g al over space to the total momentum p we find that this assumption of QM is false because the energy conservation law is violated (section 4 of http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_ ... iv2ckw.pdf ). So the conclusion must be that the moment density is not the vector product of the electrostatic and magnetic field.

Maxwell’s equations, and therefore also QM, assume that the electromagnetic field is the vector product of the electrostatic and magnetic field. What is demonstrated in section 4. The Electromagnetic Mass of the article “The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy” is that this is not true despite the vector like behaviour of both fields.

Unjustly QM/Feynman conclude that a bulb shaped charge has only 2/3 of the electromagnetic mass it actually has. QM falsely conclude that the EM approach can only explain 2/3 of the electromagnetic mass and therefore EM cannot provide a valid explanation.
When we correct this omission by Feynman/QM the EM approach explains 100% of the electromagnetic mass.

What is proven without doubt in section 4 is that the assumption of QM that the electrostatic and magnetic field interact like a vector product is definitely false. This observation disqualifies the Maxwell’s equations of being physically valid and therefore also disqualifies QM as a valid theory because QM also assumes this vector like interaction between the electrostatic and magnetic field.
Because QM is totally based on this invalid vector like assumption all the particles and physical processes of QM are false.

This theoretical observation however doesn’t disqualify the mathematical/experimental significance of the QM-formulas.

[junglelord]

All I can say is your no idiot. In fact your very astute and your teaching me things as well. Thanks guys, keep up the debate. Very interesting.

[StevenO]

Hi I.,

Thanks for the explanations.

The Feynman books you refer to are textbooks, which I think do not represent his latest insights. I'll try to highlight where I think it is reasonable to state that the wrong assumptions lead to the wrong conclusions:

In 28-1 The field energy of a point charge http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.1.bmp Feynman argues that one cannot calculate the field energy of a point charge with the Electromagnetic Theory (EM) because when the charge is infinite small there will be a singularity. This is according to QM the weak point of EM. With EM a charged particle must have some dimensions, otherwise a singularity cannot be avoided.

In later books Feynman states that the guts of EM theory are in the (inter) action between the current density and the vector potential, showing a clear preference for the four-vector form of EM. In the four-vector form the energy density for a single electron is proportional to J^2 * r^2 which does not tend to infinity for r->0.

In 28-2 The field momentum of a moving charge http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/feynman28.2.bmp Feynman analyses the dynamic mass of a charge when that charge is not a point charge; not infinite small. Feynman tries to calculate the electromagnetic mass of a moving charged sphere.
We know from experience that magnetic and electrostatic fields behave vector-like. The resulting field at a certain point is the vector summation of all individual fields at that point. This vector-like behaviour is however not proof that these fields are in all aspects vector-fields.

The very assumption of a point charge (or charged sphere, which is mathematically equivalent) makes it incompatible with QM that has as basic assumption the wave nature of matter. My preference is the wave assumptions since anything that moves in nature moves like a wave (or wavefront). A delightful explanation of EM theory that starts with a "current propagating as a wave" is given by Prof. Mead in his booklet "Collective Electrodynamics". In this book he also shows that this description naturally leads to the QM phenomena (and Newton's formula's for inertia) without the discontinuities.

Maxwell’s equations, and therefore also QM, assume that the electromagnetic field is the vector product of the electrostatic and magnetic field.

I do not think this is a valid statement. Maxwell's equations describe the interaction between electromagnetic potential and current density (like a boundary problem for a wavefront). The EM fields are a derivative of that, comparable to contour lines on a map.

Feynman argues that the electric field is radial and the magnetic field is the vector product of the speed and electric field. This argumentation results in diminishing the momentum density g with sin^2(teta).
This correction by Feynman is according to QM allowed because the momentum density g is the vector product of the electrostatic and magnetic field.
The utmost important question to be answered now is whether the momentum density g is really the result of the assumed vector product. Feynman resp. QM assume this is true. However when we analyse the integration of the momentum density g al over space to the total momentum p we find that this assumption of QM is false because the energy conservation law is violated (section 4 of http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_ ... iv2ckw.pdf ). So the conclusion must be that the moment density is not the vector product of the electrostatic and magnetic field.

I think when the momentum is represented as the sum of charge*potential + mass*speed you will not get this problem. However I have'nt found the time to study the paper and Feynman's assumptions in detail. I owe you a better quality answer...

Please keep on bringing on the interesting EM stuff!

Steven

[Idiot]

I think when the momentum is represented as the sum of charge*potential + mass*speed you will not get this problem. However I have'nt found the time to study the paper and Feynman's assumptions in detail. I owe you a better quality answer...

Yes I think you owe me a better answer.

Actually I want only one answer and that is: "what is incorrect about the mentioned article?". Not an answer like: "I think that Feynman later ....."

[StevenO]

I think when the momentum is represented as the sum of charge*potential + mass*speed you will not get this problem. However I have'nt found the time to study the paper and Feynman's assumptions in detail. I owe you a better quality answer...

Yes I think you owe me a better answer.

Actually I want only one answer and that is: "what is incorrect about the mentioned article?". Not an answer like: "I think that Feynman later ....."

Sure. I think it is an interesting paper. From Maxwell we know that the (electro) kinetic energy is equal to the spatial integral of the magnetic field. We should then conclude that a single stable electron must have a (quantum) magnetic spin. It demonstrates that Feynman's assumptions in 28.2 cannot hold.

A solution to these contradictions is in the use of the vector potential and the coupling to the electron wave function.
Carver Mead shows (in the booklet I referred to) that Newtons law of intertia can be derived from the Maxwell equations using the vector potential and the electron wave function. He also shows that quantum behaviour follows from Maxwell and that photons follow from the coupling of two (quantum) resonators.

[Idiot]

Sure. I think it is an interesting paper. From Maxwell we know that the (electro) kinetic energy is equal to the spatial integral of the magnetic field. We should then conclude that a single stable electron must have a (quantum) magnetic spin. It demonstrates that Feynman's assumptions in 28.2 cannot hold.

A solution to these contradictions is in the use of the vector potential and the coupling to the electron wave function.

!!!!
I'm amazed because if Feynman's assumptions in 28.2 do not hold then the conclusion must be, because QM is based on this false assumption, that the QM approach is invalid.
The demonstrated abuse of the energy conservation law has become a fundamental flaw of QM.

Your mentioned solution cannot solve the problem for QM or Maxwell’s equations because the basic formulas are physically invalid; they violate the energy conservation law!
Fundamental physical flaws in mathematical formulas cannot be corrected in the way you suggest.

[rcglinsk]

What an interesting article!

The logical consequence of the equivalence for magnetic and
kinetic energy is, that every mass that moves possesses kinetic
energy also must have magnetic energy

that is a quote from the paper by Van Der Togt.

Comparing equation 8 from part 3 and 4 yields the following result:

MpRp = MeRe

Equation 8 is based on the idea that the intrinsic energy of a proton or an electron (it's E in terms of E=mc^2), has two parts, a electric and magnetic field component summed together.

If anything this paper disproves the idea there is such a thing as mass or radius, not that we're wrong to think magnetic energy is not a form of mass. The only other thing I can imagine is that electrons and protons may have equal masses and radii products at rest, but in everyday experience protons are experiencing time so slowly that there movement in terms of meters per second is huge, while electrons experience time very quickly.

Google "Sidelights on Relativity." It's a pair of lectures by Einstein from around 1920.

I think the conclusion of the Van Der Togt paper may be missing the following point from one of the lectures:

“The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand, a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field … Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities that are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or – as they might be called – space and matter.”

[Idiot]

Google "Sidelights on Relativity." It's a pair of lectures by Einstein from around 1920.

I think the conclusion of the Van Der Togt paper may be missing the following point from one of the lectures:

“The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand, a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field … etc.”

Why bring Einstein into the equation? Einstein, nor anyone else, has been able to reconcile gravitation (RT) and QM. So Einstein’s speculation concerning gravitation and the electromagnetic field bears no scientific significance in relation to the article.

Omissions or errors in science are not uncommon. When there is a fundamental problem concerning QM then this might explain why science has not been able to reconcile the Relativity Theory and QM.

[rcglinsk]

Google "Sidelights on Relativity." It's a pair of lectures by Einstein from around 1920.

I think the conclusion of the Van Der Togt paper may be missing the following point from one of the lectures:

“The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand, a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field … etc.”

Why bring Einstein into the equation? Einstein, nor anyone else, has been able to reconcile gravitation (RT) and QM. So Einstein’s speculation concerning gravitation and the electromagnetic field bears no scientific significance in relation to the article.

Omissions or errors in science are not uncommon. When there is a fundamental problem concerning QM then this might explain why science has not been able to reconcile the Relativity Theory and QM.

Your argument is that the speculation I offered is not scientifically significant because it's Einstein's.

From http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/logicalfallacies.html

10. Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Your argument is the abusive variety. I would also note that any first principle mathematical model, especially one that assumes "spherical masses," "charge" "uniformly distributed " and other non-empirical perfections, is speculation.

You also wrote an earlier reply stating:

Actually I want only one answer and that is: "what is incorrect about the mentioned article?". Not an answer like: "I think that Feynman later ....."

Assuming you referred there to the Van Der Togt article, I would refer you back to part of my post and request a specific reply:

"Comparing equation 8 from part 3 and 4 yields the following result:

MpRp = MeRe"

When conventional values are substituted, that equation comes out wrong.