Broken Maxwell EM ?

T

toybot

Guest
In "A History of Vector Analysis" by Michael J. Crowe
(Dover Books, ISBN 0-486-67910-1) we find an
interesting chronology worthy of note.

The struggle by William Rowan Hamilton and James Clerk
Maxwell to have their 4-dimensional algebraic representation
of EM theory accepted is singular indeed.


The opposition:

Lord Kelvin
Oliver Heaviside
Josiah Willard Gibbs


The fight:

1840 - 1900

Brutal professional spats, the loggerheads arguing that
if you can't boil it down to 3vectors - you need a shrink.
Hamilton had concluded that no system of closed algebra
for 3-space existed. His discovery ii = jj = kk = ijk is
one of the most remarkable in history, and perhaps never
has so much mathematical literature simply been scuttled
by those afraid to associate with heretics like Hamilton
and Maxwell. (The topic was dead and off-limits by 1900)


The immediate result:

Quaternion product broken into 'dot' and 'cross' products
Quaternion field flux broken into 'divergence' and 'curl'
(Note the sign reversal, Hamilton/Maxwell argued for 'convergence')
Hamilton frustrated, hazed, isolated. Maxwell disgusted.

Indeed it may have been Oliver Heaviside who 'para-phrased' Maxwell's
deeper theory into four equations with greatly complicated algebra
(in the name simplifying it)


The long term result:

Not until the 1990's was it discovered that the Pauli Exclusion
Matrices of Quantum Mechanics were one and the same as Hamilton's
quaternions.

Also in the 1990's a seminal work, "Clifford Algebra and Spinors"
by Perti Lounesto (London Mathematical Society, Lecture Note Series 239,
Cambridge University Press) revealed the connection between Clifford
Algebra, the bivector, and the Quaternion Group. This forms the basis
for a more complete theory of Classical EM.

100 years of obfuscation. Also, the key work: Hamilton's "Elements of
Quaternions" (both editions) proves nearly impossible to acquire.

100 years with matrix "rack-o-math" hegemony.


Interesting side notes:

Much of this occurred under auspices of Yale at a time when the roving
eye of mass media was poorly understood.

The contributions of Kelvin to Thermodynamics reveals he had very deep
understanding, his two water jet experiment (static generator) notable.
But he missed a crucial connection (heat is cathodic).

"Gibbs Free Energy" bears a name which will live him down in infamy if
he is ever determined to have been involved in work that hid truths.


The point of this post:

All of these honorable men in our history are presented as heroes and
angels and pauper survivors as we idealize them. But if EM theory was
indeed corrupted to keep us in the pen as "The Wave" certainly implies,
then this corruption and its form certainly are on exhibit here for all
to see. How many of these three were S&B? Can the moods and attitudes
of this struggle provide us today with an archetype of a smear campaign?

Maybe ...

Any thoughts?
 
Yes, SUSY seems to be leading us on a wild goose chase today... here's some more on Maxwell, etc.:

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QOphys.html
 
http://www.archive.org/details/117770258_002

has the book available for download in several formats (some of which I am clueless about...).

It is a hugemongous file so if you don't have high speed internet, don't hold your breath. It is essentially a photocopy. Also, consider adding a memory DIMM so acrobat does not choke... :)

Hugemongous: Its huge and its humongous, its hugemongous.
 
rs said:
http://www.archive.org/details/117770258_002

has the book available for download in several formats (some of which I am clueless about...).
djvu format is much more efficient than pdf. You can go to http://lizardtech.com and download djv plugin for your browser. Then you can read djv documents.

Concerning quaternions: today I have spent several hours with my friend (who has four phd's - including mathematics, philosophy,
and political sciences) going through the collected works of Sir Hamilton, and we did not find anything that is relevant to "better theory of Maxwell". Hamilton was certainly a GENIOUS, did a lot of wonderful work on quaternions, mostly in the area of alebra and geometry. We were surprised to see how much of it has been forgotten. But the part relevant to physics has been developed later by Clifford, and is now being applied in theoretical physics.

I will go now through the "Elements of Quaternions" and will post a review here of what I have found. Give me few days .... But what what I have found in the "Table of Contents" it seems to me that "Elements of Quaternions" do not contain anything essentially more relevant than what is contained in Hamilton's Collected Works.

********
Added April 30, 2006:

I went through Hamilton's "Elements of Quaternions". I could not find anything useful for the theory of EM there.
Perhaps it is important to notice that Hamilton's quaternions is a particular case of more general Clifford algebras. Quaternions are nothing but the even part of the Clifford algebra of the 3D Euclidean space. More general approach to EM and other fields uses Clifford algebras. A good example is a book by Gustavo R. Gonzalez "Physical Geometry" and a book by Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr, "The Many Faces of Maxwell, Dirac and Einstein Equations. The Clifford bundle approach."
 
Wow you're doing better than me! You find Elements after I have looked for so long!!
I found most of my insights into the EM side out of Maxwell's "treatise." He gives a few
formulations, and mention of their use. Also Joly and Tait. P.G. Tait's introduction has a very
fine low level trigonometric approach, where he concentrates on parameterization of a line.
Also Joly became impressed with the elegant and concise notation possible, and I note on
from a personal point of view, that several points made by Maxwell appear to use Joly-ish
style notation.

Hamilton was a mathematician primarily, and proposed his math be used. Sorry if I gave you
the impression that he derived EM. Hamilton did not. Maxwell is the only one I know of who used it
rigidly for classical EM, though others have touched on it. JCM lists a number of citations in the "treatise" index, but the body of the work uses quaternion notation frequently. As a motivator, examination of JCM's discussion of periphractic regions (early in vol1) one will find the need for vector spaces that can be adjoined and treated rigorously as a graph with vector products that correctly couple across the membranes. If I had the "treatise" in front of me (it's at home), I'd cite some of my favorite lines. Maybe I can pull something together for later this week.

When treating problems of statics and dynamics using this algebra, one finds that the remaining term is the total force pushing inwards on the system (the convergence). Problems we are trying to solve currently, Poynting flow vis-a-vis multiple axis E&B sensors, spectrum of local curvature fluctuations given plane waves, decomposition of vector field measurements using the two-scalar solution of Whittaker (see: 1903), 4D DFT.

toybot
 
Ark,

You said that you don't see anything special with the quaternion algebras of which
I agree by itself but perhaps used in the context as Maxwell did, perhaps there is
something else to consider here?

There was a "big fight" regarding Maxwell's use of quaternions in his "A
treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", 1873 release (1st release) as started
by Heavyside, Gibbs, and also opposed by Lord Kelvin (?).

From what I have read - some are saying that the vector form has diluted some
of the properties of the 20 equations of 20 unknowns into a "neat" 4 vector equations
by use of arbitrary forced guage conditions? I also read that quaternions are best used
when working with spatial/rotational bodies in space and it being used today for solving
issues regarding satelites which are more difficult and error prone in other forms. A link
is provided. Please understand that I am a novice so I do not have a full background of
the all the technical stuff to be in the know, so I am learning as I go.

Here are the following claims or statements by others regarding the
Heavyside-Gibbs v.s. Maxwells quaternion based equations regarding
EM theory:

[links of no particular order]
http://www.hypercomplex.com/research/emgrav/hypcx-p20001015.html
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Esai/Beard_scal_vac.html
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Orig_maxwell_equations.pdf
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm

links: [google search: quaternion rotational dynamic]
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/quaternions_and_spatial_rotation

The last link in particular had me interested because it seemed to me that maybe
there is a sychroncity (or pattern) that since EM travels in spiral/helix/rotation path,
then perhaps the quaternion form is the best form to use rather than that of vectors
and will result in no loss of [or hidden] properties?

Do you believe that Maxwell's quaternion based forms are fully/accurately represented
today by use of the Heavyside/Gibbs (vector notiations) form used by many EE's today
and that nothing was "lost in translation"?

Kind regards,
Dan
 
Do you believe that Maxwell's quaternion based forms are fully/accurately represented today by use of the Heavyside/Gibbs (vector notiations) form used by many EE's today and that nothing was "lost in translation"?
If all you are doing is "conventional" EM then you don't technically need quaternions. If you want to do more then as Ark said, you can use Clifford Algebra to handle quaternions and lots more (like octonions for example). Progress may have been historically slowed down by not having things like quaternions and Clifford Algebra used more earlier.
 
I essentially finished my inquiry into the subject. The result is: there is nothing mysterious whatsoever about the use of quaternions by Maxwell. They are used in the edition of 1873 as well as in the third edition, reprinted by Dover. Maxwell is using quaternions because at that time the vector notation was not yet developed (the operators grad, curl and div).


It is true that Maxwell was changing his equations (both in their quaternionic and component form) with time. They are somewhat different in the first edition and in the third edition


maxwell_1873-1891.jpg



, and still different in Maxwell's "Dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" published in 1864. Today we group
the quantities differently. There is some discussion of these issues in the Russian edition of Maxwell's "Selected works" where the Editor and Translator compare Maxwell's original equations with what we call Maxwell's equation today. Here is the relevant part:

maxwell_r.jpg


The main difference from the contemporary formulation is that Maxwell includes the term -[Bu] in his definition of E - eq. (D) - while today we include this term in the Lorentz force, not in E

Some of those disinformation spreading people say: Maxwell had 20 equations, much more than we have today ! This is a joke. Suppose I have
one equation:

X= 2A

Now I introduce new variable B=4A

Then I have TWO equations instead of one:

X=B/2
B=4A

By defining new variables we introduce new equations. So, the number of equations is not relevant. The number of "essential equations" is important. And here there is no mystery whatsoever.

Summarizing: all this internet gossip about mysterious quaternions and Maxwell is a disinformation, it is not not based on the data. The sites spreading rumours about mysterious quaternions can be added to the list of disinfo sites.

The discussion of Maxwell equations today continues. Here we have, for instance, a paper by two Russian: Andrew E. Chubykalo and Vladimir V. Onoochin, now in Mexico: On the theoretical possibility of the electromagnetic scalar potential wave spreading with an arbitrary velocity in vacuum. In the introduction we can read:

Our letter is devoted to the discussion of a possibility of the existence
of sub- and superluminal electromagnetic waves in vacuum.

A considerable number of experimental and theoretical works about
superluminal spreading of electromagnetic waves, particles and other
objects have recently been published, as mentioned by E. Recami in
[1,2], Walker in [3], Kotel'nikov in [4,5] and in the book edited by
Chubykalo {\it et al} [6] (see also references in the mentioned works). J.
Marangos wrote in his brilliant note ''Faster than a speeding photon" [7]:
''{\sl The textbooks say nothing can travel faster than light, not even
light itself. New experiments show that is no longer true, raising
questions about the maximum speed at which we can send information.}" (see
also the bibliography in this work). Really, a series of recent
experiments, performed at Cologne[8], Berkeley[9], Florence[10] and
Vienna[11], and quite recent experiments by W. Tittel {\it et al} [12]
revealed that evanescent waves (in undersized waveguides, e.g.) seem to
spread with a superluminal[/] group velocity. For example, in up-to-date
experiments by Mugnai {\it et al} (see their work [13])
superluminal behavior in the propagation of microwaves (centimeter
wavelength) over much longer distances (tens of centimeters) at a speed
7\% faster than $c$ was reported.

In the majority of cases, these works almost directly
declare that generally accepted electrodynamics must be sufficiently
reconsidered.

The paper was sent to Phys. Rev. letters, and was rejected. Mainstream journals do not accept
papers that question mainstream paradigm! This is a well known fact. So the authors have to
publish original papers in fringe journals. Sometimes really really fringe! To distinguish
a "nonsens" from "original and new" is not an easy task and only experts can do it - sometimes experts
make mistakes as well.
 
Ark,

Thanks for clearing that up! So I guess we can say that Heavyside/Gibbs are faithfully
retranslating Maxwell orignal form into vector form with no loss of details. Now I can safely
ignore people such as Bearden and others for trying to support their underlying arguments
using their own interpretation of Maxwell's equations.

Dan
 
dant said:
Now I can safely
ignore people such as Bearden and others for trying to support their underlying arguments
using their own interpretation of Maxwell's equations.

Dan
Let me make things clear:

1) You can ignore Bearden, for sure
2) As far as I know Bearden does not provide his "own interpretation of Maxwell's equation". If you have some other information on this subject - please, let me know.
3) Concerning "others" - the devil is in the details. Who are these others and what do they say. As I wrote before, there is an ongoing work
on re-formulations interpretation of EM. Waldyr Rodrigues has a new book quoting some of this work.
 
=====================
Disclaimer: What I am writing here are some thoughts I have, and hopefully by bringing these thoughts out
into the open might as a result bring out some useful knowledge. I am hoping that for those who care,
or have a common interest, might benefit from these discussions.
=====================

ark said:
Let me make things clear:
[...]
2) As far as I know Bearden does not provide his "own interpretation of Maxwell's equation". If you have some other information on this subject - please, let me know.
[...]
I provided some links previously, but specificially:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm
[There are many other sources, but I wanted to focus on this one]

Yes, no math in this link was given by Bearden, but I think he is implying that the current Heavyside/Gibbs
equations assumes Lorentz guage condition, meaning that "we" are currently using and designing
our electrical circuits such that it forces power-sources into much faster entropic state by destroying the
source generator (or source-dipole as he calls it) by using closed circuits such that NET current or
ptentials = 0?

I also got the impression that Bearden implies that the quaternion form includes all properties
[includes symmetry and antisymmetry properties] from a physicist point of view and the current
vector forms of H/G removes this [physicist-level of] knowledge from EE's in such a way that EE's
see only a forced symmetry model, i.e. closed-circuit principles, aka Lorentz guage conditions of a
closed-circuit, NET current/potentials=0, i.e. a unnatural and forced condition that destroys the source
dipole or power source by directly connecting the load to the source?

I think he is advocating that using an open/closed or "transfer" circuit design that preserves
the source-generator by modeling Maxwell's thought experiment regarding the 2nd law of
thermodymics of what is called "Maxwell's demon". He is basically transferring energy from
the source generator in such a way that potentials are transferred with no loss of energy and
so when it is time to consume this energy, release the source generator connection first and
then release the stored energy into a closed circuit that has a load attached to it. This concept
is highly efficient that from current uses we have today OSIT. I think this is the "free" part
in "free" energy although it is not really "free" since a device has to be made and someone
still has to pay for the work of this design. One thing to me from a personal standpoint, is
that I have seen how via a "marx generator" that energy potential can be "built up" via the
transfer of energy so this is why it "appeals" to me but I could be mislead due to my lack
of understanding of the all of the true principles behind it due to some other plausable explainations.

I also get the distinct impression that it is also possible to somehow draw this [potential] energy
from the "vaccum space" or "aether", or from the quantum foam/sea whatever that means - some
untapped source at the quantum level. I think you (ark) would have a much better understanding
of this subject than I can ever fathom here, which is why I am writing this message here and I hope
to get a better understanding of the truth here. But I think this is what Bearden is trying to say,
that Maxwell has preserved what is the "potentials" which is "written out" from the vector represenation
form? I think he is saying that it is still possible to use the "imaginary potentials" from "vacuum space"
if you know how to create such a device?

Bearden quotes:
[...]
So, as one can see, Maxwell had been dead quite a few years prior to the dramatic reduction of his
equations and theory and the emergence of vector analysis. Maxwell's theory did not gain prominence
until Hertz and Lodge had experimentally detected electromagnetic waves.
[This implies that due to this change, progress was slowed way down until picked up again... and
sounds almost conpiratorial?]

The much-reduced Heaviside-Gibbs-Hertz limited version of Maxwell's theory, with the added Lorentz symmetrization and arbitrary discarding of all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, has since been taught as "Maxwell's theory". It is Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notations, as further limited by Lorentz.

[This implies that closed circuits are Lorentz symmetry: destroys the source-generator, and I am
not sure what the asymmetrical equivelent is and assume it is open circuit or "energy-transfer and
switch-to-load" or "special" circuits that preserve/protect the source generator]

[...]
Force was considered the only reality; the potentials were not even considered physically real, but just considered to be mathematical conveniences. Hence the electrodynamicists believed that they could change the potentials any way they wished (regauge at will), so long as the two new free force fields that emerged were equal and opposite, so that no NET translation force field emerged (even though two new ones did including with their field energies). In short, that was Lorentz symmetrization.

[As explained above, I think, the open/closed or "transfer" circuit.]

[...]
end quote.

I recall from the C's that we must think in non-linear terms and if I recall correctly - did
the C's say that our math is quite "linear" or is written only in 3D terms? If I assumed
wrong, please correct me.

Also, it was my understanding that mathematics is a language that it is written to express a
model of the "thing" being represented, i.e. to explain a physical property represented in a
language for which we can all share and with common understanding. I can imagine, that
not everything [in nature] can be easily or fully be expressed in mathematics and even
perhaps details are missing or unknown and left open. I would hope that those with
insights can discover more details and add these little details but how do you attach
these little details as addendum to the original document? Anway, I don't want to
diverge from the subject as I have a tendency to do at times.

So, maybe what is happening here, is that the math given by Maxwell in quaternion form
and that given in Heavyside-Gibbs form, both are fine as it is. Both forms do not neccesarily
show that anything is "lost in translation" and is shown as it is. I guess the rest of the details
depend on "personal intuition" or "personal knowledge" and it is up to that person to discover
from what is already given?

Maybe what Bearden is trying to do is to explore beyond what is given in Maxwell's equations,
who knows but some of his ideas regarding energy transfer seems enticing and if it were
possible to provide more efficiency so as to prevent wasteful energy use.

Dan
 
dant said:
Yes, no math in this link was given by Bearden, but I think he is implying that the current Heavyside/Gibbs
equations assumes Lorentz guage condition, meaning that "we" are currently using and designing
our electrical circuits such that it forces power-sources into much faster entropic state by destroying the
source generator (or source-dipole as he calls it) by using closed circuits such that NET current or
ptentials = 0?
I am repeating it again and again and you seem not to be getting it (or you do not read what was posted before - if so, then read first, post later): Bearden is writing nonsense and is spreading disinformation. So, please, do not quote Bearden on this forum! Unless you want to spread disinformation as well? But then this forum is not the right forum for you!

Note: Whoever is interested may like to check this page and, in particular, Tom Bearden's PhD is Based on 'life experiences and knowledge'
 
ark said:
dant said:
Yes, no math in this link was given by Bearden, but I think he is implying that the current Heavyside/Gibbs
equations assumes Lorentz guage condition, meaning that "we" are currently using and designing
our electrical circuits such that it forces power-sources into much faster entropic state by destroying the
source generator (or source-dipole as he calls it) by using closed circuits such that NET current or
ptentials = 0?
I am repeating it again and again and you seem not to be getting it (or you do not read what was posted before - if so, then read first, post later): Bearden is writing nonsense and is spreading disinformation. So, please, do not quote Bearden on this forum! Unless you want to spread disinformation as well? But then this forum is not the right forum for you!

Note: Whoever is interested may also like to check this page and, in particular, Tom Bearden's PhD is Based on 'life experiences and knowledge'
 
ark wrote:

I am repeating it again and again and you seem not to be getting it (or you do not read what was posted before - if so, then read first, post later): Bearden is writing nonsense and is spreading disinformation. So, please, do not quote Bearden on this forum! Unless you want to spread disinformation as well? But then this forum is not the right forum for you!
=================

Ok, I get it. I will stop this thread regarding Bearden as I have
no wish to propogate Bearden disinfo.

Dan
 
Recently my attention was drawn to the "European Ufo Survey", and in particular to a paper written by their onboard theoretical physicist Phillippe Gaugain: "Unified Dirac-Maxwell field as space-time portal". Three of the important references in this paper are papers by K. J. van Vlaenderen on "Tesla waves", "scalar fields" etc. In his papers Koen van Vlaenderen is using quaternions (more precisely: bi-quaternions), quotes Tom Bearden etc. His papers have been criticised by Gerhard Bruhn.

In fact the use of quaternions only obscures the subject and makes it difficult to see what is the real content and what are the problems.

All the content of Maxwell's equations in vacuum can be summarized in just one line:

*d*d A = J

where A is the electromagnetic potential, J is the electric current, d is the exterior derivative, and * is the Hodge star operator. Koen van Vlaenderen proposes to replace them by a more symmetric one

(*d*d + d*d*)A = J.

Note: *d*d + d*d* is known as Laplace-Beltrami operator.

And that is all. But he is not able to express his idea in such simple terms. Now, when you see the above simple form - you instantly see the problem. The electric charge is not conserved in this "theory with scalar waves". While in the original Maxwell theory we automatically get charge conservation, that can be written as d*J=0, in the modified theory electric charge is not conserved.

Paul Gaugain, in his paper, is not concerned with this problem, he does not correct it. It is not a good visit card for the European Ufo Survey!
 
Back
Top Bottom