Broken Maxwell EM ?

[John G]

You are correct in a world with no interactions, but there is no such world. We know that EM theory should yield elliptic curves as solutions and not sinewaves as with Maxwell's EM theory.

If you are talking elliptical then I think you have left the world of Lie Algebra gauge groups and have included Jordan Algebra QM states. Thus Maxwell's EM isn't any more wrong than Einstein's GR, it's just incomplete cause it's classical not quantum. Do I have this right to my level of understanding using Tony terminology?

 

[John G]

The reason Tony is not being published is because he is not rigorous as Ark pointed out. Referring to a dispersion as a diffusion is clearly quite sloppy. It doesn't bother me, because I know what Tony's driving at, but others might view his physics as just plain wrong.I'm also sure it troubles many when he makes references to QM when clearly he's describing 'String Theory'. As I mentioned previously, his material needs a bunch of editing.

Tony really only wants published in Cornell's archive and Cornell's official reason for rejection was Tony's lack of institutional affiliation. Tony being a lawyer fought this as not being enforced equally for everyone but Cornell got the case moved to NY where Tony can't practice. Tony believes the real reason he got targeted is that Tony unoffically offered legal advice to someone else having problems with Cornell's archive. Tony had no problem putting papers on the archive back when it was at Los Alamos and I don't think he had Georgia Tech affiliation for all of them.

So are you saying Feynman's correct 2-dim Checkerboard would be a Quantum Mechanics diffusion while Tony's correct 4-dim Checkerboard would be a Hamiltonian/Lagrangian dispersion? Tony likes to use original terms when he feels there's no huge reason to abandon the old ones. Going from 2-dim to 4-dim does not seem like a big reason to change terms even if the math gets more complicated. Also for his Lagrangian continuum version, Tony's talking volumes not frequencies/wavelengths/velocities, so it seems more diffusion than dispersion?

 

[Newton]

You are correct in a world with no interactions, but there is no such world. We know that EM theory should yield elliptic curves as solutions and not sinewaves as with Maxwell's EM theory.

If you are talking elliptical then I think you have left the world of Lie Algebra gauge groups and have included Jordan Algebra QM states. Thus Maxwell's EM isn't any more wrong than Einstein's GR, it's just incomplete cause it's classical not quantum. Do I have this right to my level of understanding using Tony terminology?

What Tony has done is provide all the manifolds for the Wess-Zumino-Witten model (which is based on Simons-Chern wave mechanics). It's a pretty major result. It means the all nonlinear PDEs (and the associated irreducible orbits) have solutions that are restricted to the manifolds and Lie algebras that Tony describes.

Both Maxwell's EM and Einstein's GR are incorrect. Based on Tony's theory (plus Simons-Chern), the correct equations for both must be nonlinear 2nd order PDEs - that is, the correct PDE will have periodic coefficients OR be nonlinear somewhat similar to Burgers/Navier-Stokes equation. In other words, EM and GR both have parameterized (single parameter) orbits on symplectic manifolds (torus like).

BTW: Elliptic as in modular form

 

[Newton]

Also for his Lagrangian continuum version, Tony's talking volumes not frequencies/wavelengths/velocities, so it seems more diffusion than dispersion?

Correct... Symplectic manifolds have invariant volumes as in an incompressible fluid. It's kind of like a 3-dimensional Kepler's constant swept area law.

Regarding Diffusions. There is really no such thing (in the real world) as a diffusion. All dynamics are dispersive and as the statistics approach the normal distribution, people generally call dispersions diffusions since del-squared =0 is a good approximation. See KAM theory for a full discussion.

 

[John G]

BTW: Elliptic as in modular form

Tony loosely relates modular functions to Jordan Algebra via the Leech Lattice. It all relates to the bosonic string and Spin(8) Triality too, lots of 24-26-27-dims with spacetime, matter, antimatter plus worldsheet, bosonic M-theory... Urs Schreiber, a conventional superstring guy, agreed with Tony that there is a deep connection between the string theory worldsheet and the Feynman path.

 

[durabone]

Heya Ark, Bluelamp, Newton, Guest (et al):

I have recently been studying Simon L Altmann's work, and found this paper on the history of the quaternion scandal that I thought you might find worthwhile. It chronicles the attack & defense of quaternions, and Hamilton's zeal & fallacy.

ENJOY!

http://www.assembla.com/code/ssc-rovers/subversion/node/blob/documents/1989_arti_Altmann_Hamilton.pdf

P

 

[Laura]

Re-reading this thread made me wonder who "Newton" is/was. Since he was gone long before we changed to the new software, all traces of him had disappeared. I had to go to the back-up copy of the old forum to find out that he posted from this IP: 71.10.227.167 and that his name is "Tom Slade." His email addy brings up this FB page:

_https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=762784678#!/profile.php?id=663716186

He seems to be some kind of teacher for:

_http://www.edexcel.com/i-am-a/teacher/pages/viewNotice.aspx?notice=1186

which... "Edexcel, a Pearson company, is the UK's largest awarding body offering academic and vocational qualifications and testing to schools, colleges, employers and other places of learning in the UK and internationally."

I think that means a diploma mill of some sort.

 

[Ollie]

...
I think that means a diploma mill of some sort.

That's correct, Pearson's are only in it for the books etc that they can produce and sell, the qualifications are only a route to achieve this.

 

[Ottershrew]

...
I think that means a diploma mill of some sort.

That's correct, Pearson's are only in it for the books etc that they can produce and sell, the qualifications are only a route to achieve this.

I don't think that's entirely correct - although as a profit-making company, Edexcel is obviously devoted to making money.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland there are five examination boards. These boards set the main exams for schools to give their students, e.g. GCSE's and A-levels. The examination boards were originally run by universities in part because they wanted some sort of proof that a given student had reached the level where they could begin as an undergraduate at university, i.e. they had "matriculated" by getting two A-levels.

These morphed over the years into the present five examination boards: AQA, OCR, CCEA, WJEC and Edexcel. The Edexcel Foundation grew out of the University of London School Examinations Board, and was run as an educational charity until its takeover by the Pearson Foundation in 2003, when it was renamed simply "Edexcel". It's the only one of the five boards which is run as a for-profit enterprise, but plenty of schools choose to set Edexcel exams. Edexcel exams are as respectable as any other exams.

Not that any of these exams are really worth anything very much in the final analysis - but that's not the point here.

 

[Appollynon]

I too was reading through this thread in an effort to get a better understanding of who Maxwell was and what his theories on EM were relating too. What I found interesting was the last few comments here regarding Edexcel and the Pearson Foundation. I don't know if your aware of this already Ottershrew or Laura, but the Pearson Foundation are now in partnership with and part funded by, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation!

I found this out here @ //finance_yahoo_com/news/Pearson-Foundation-Partners-bw-3456567618.html?x=0&.v=1

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Pearson Foundation today announced a partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support America’s teachers by creating a full series of digital instructional resources. Online courses in math and reading/English language arts will offer a coherent and systemic approach to teaching the new Common Core State Standards. Common Core Standards were developed by the National Governors Association, in partnership with the Council of Chief State School Officers. Forty-one states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards.

Unique and original, this project is dedicated to creating a complete, foundational system of instruction built around the Common Core Standards. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will provide funding and research to support this partnership.

Over the next three years, the Pearson Foundation will develop 24 courses covering math for grades K-10 and reading/English language arts for grades K-12. The courses will enable teachers and students to access the latest and most effective digital learning technologies as they prepare to meet the internationally benchmarked college readiness goals of the Common Core Standards.

“This project is an innovative way to support teachers by providing tools they need to help students meet the new standards,” said Vicki Phillips, Director of Education, College Ready, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “The Pearson Foundation has assembled an amazing international team to meet the goals articulated by the new Common Core Standards. We look forward to partnering in the development and dissemination of these much-needed resources.”

"The development of the Common Core Standards has set a high bar for public education in America," said Pearson Chief Executive Marjorie Scardino. "With the support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Pearson Foundation, we'll aim high to devise courses that will engage teachers and students and try to help a new generation compete in a demanding world economy."

Complementing the instructional system, additional resources may also be developed including those from third-party curriculum providers whose solutions offer the greatest potential for student success. The courses will be made available in 2013, before the Common Core Standards are implemented. Funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will support four courses to be offered as free, open educational resources, with the intent of widening access and spurring innovation around the Common Core.

Pearson, the nation’s leading education technology company, will offer these courses to school districts, complete with new services for in-person professional development for teacher transition to the Common Core and next generation assessment. The Pearson Foundation will also work with other partners to explore opportunities for additional commercial development and distribution.

Judy Codding, former President and CEO of America's Choice, is leading the course development effort. Phil Daro, chairperson of the Common Core Mathematics college and career readiness standards work group, and Sally Hampton, chairperson of the Common Core Reading/English Language Arts college and career readiness standards work group, will oversee the course design and development teams. Susan Sclafani, former counselor to Secretary of Education Rod Paige and Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education, will play a major role in coordinating this initiative. Educators and researchers from leading universities will also have an active role in designing and developing these courses.

“These new courses will be the first designed from the bottom up to meet the new learning goals established by the Common Core Standards,” said Pearson Foundation President, Mark Nieker. “These goals are essential to make sure American students have the best chance possible to succeed when they graduate high school. The courses will be developed to increase student engagement and will focus on the essential understanding of the concepts that inform Math and Language Arts. The key learning behaviors of collaboration, the appropriate use of technology, and real-world engagement—that educators agree are already defining college and workforce success—are integrated with the content.”

I had to laugh at the emboldened part where they talk about American public education being set to such a high bar, when I know the opposite is true and the standards of public education there are in decline. What put a shiver down my spine was the part that talks about engaging teachers and students to compete in a demanding world economy. After reading the Wave and knowing how the educational focus on economics has been co-opted and used, this doesn't bode well for any educational edifice that is linked to the Pearson Foundation. Maybe I'm just cynical, but it speaks to me of an effort to control and manipulate the educational polices and practise here in the UK, by the Gates foundation, through the back door, so to speak. It makes anything or anyone who may have a background working for the Pearson Foundation or any of it's subsidiary companies such as Edexcel highly suspect to my mind. I wouldn't ordinarily post something that is so far form the topic heading, but I figured this was interesting and noteworthy nonetheless considering the previous posts.

 

[Laura]

In short, it looks like Newton was here in the role of conscious COINTELPRO.

 

[Ollie]

...
I think that means a diploma mill of some sort.

That's correct, Pearson's are only in it for the books etc that they can produce and sell, the qualifications are only a route to achieve this.

I don't think that's entirely correct - although as a profit-making company, Edexcel is obviously devoted to making money.

I was talking about personal experience of Pearson, and having to close down an unsuccessful promotion of a set of UK University distance learning courses contractually marketed in the US by Pearson - basically they did no marketing. This was before Edexcel was set up, so cannot really comment on that aspect.

 

[EricLux]

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

pity it doesn't work.

 

[EricLux]

Elements of quaternions : Hamilton, William Rowan, (1805-1865) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

2d ed., Vol. 2

www.archive.org

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.

Thanks a lot :)

 

[EricLux]

djvu format is much more efficient than pdf. You can go to Extensis | Font, Digital Asset, & Image Compression Solutions 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."

Thanks @ark