Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. Inphysical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
1. IntroductionNevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.
The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb ï‚¹ 0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulombâ€™s law which defines the Coulombâ€™s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulombâ€™s forceundergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.
2. Consequencesrelativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.
â€¢ The relationï€ mu0 eps0 c2 = 1
Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
â€¢ Biotâ€“Savart lawthus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.
The equation (58) is identical to the Biotâ€“Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biotâ€“Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.
â€¢ Lorentz force law
(61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulombâ€™s law.
â€¢ Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
3. Experimental evidencesdriving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper Â«Showing tangential magnetic
â€¢ My experiments
The first experiment is Â«Continuous rotation of a circular coil experimentÂ» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
I have also made a Â« Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force Â» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: Â« Detail of mycircular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor Â» .
â€¢ Experiment of wire fragmentationsignificant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.
In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical force.
4. Conclusion
Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
Since the Biotâ€“Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism ismuch better understood.
For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
Â« From Coulombâ€™s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to currentÂ»
https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current
Kuan Peng
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism.[first error, snip]
However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16â€¯AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
Nevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.1. Introduction
The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb ï‚¹ 0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulombâ€™s law which defines the Coulombâ€™s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulombâ€™s force
relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.2. Consequences
â€¢ The relationï€ mu0 eps0 c2 = 1
Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
thus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.â€¢ Biotâ€“Savart law
The equation (58) is identical to the Biotâ€“Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biotâ€“Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.
â€¢ Lorentz force law
(61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulombâ€™s law.
â€¢ Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper Â«Showing tangential magnetic3. Experimental evidences
â€¢ My experiments
The first experiment is Â«Continuous rotation of a circular coil experimentÂ» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor Â» .I have also made a Â« Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force Â» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: Â« Detail of my
force.â€¢ Experiment of wire fragmentation
In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical
significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.4. Conclusion
Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
much better understood.Since the Biotâ€“Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
Â« From Coulombâ€™s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to currentÂ»
https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current
Kuan PengMan's work is F=ma but is not from the four fundamental forces.
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. Inphysical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
1. IntroductionNevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.
The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb ï‚¹ 0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulombâ€™s law which defines the Coulombâ€™s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulombâ€™s forceundergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.
2. Consequencesrelativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.
â€¢ The relationï€ mu0 eps0 c2 = 1
Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
â€¢ Biotâ€“Savart lawthus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.
The equation (58) is identical to the Biotâ€“Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biotâ€“Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.
â€¢ Lorentz force law
(61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulombâ€™s law.
â€¢ Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
3. Experimental evidencesdriving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper Â«Showing tangential magnetic
â€¢ My experiments
The first experiment is Â«Continuous rotation of a circular coil experimentÂ» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
I have also made a Â« Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force Â» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: Â« Detail of mycircular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor Â» .
â€¢ Experiment of wire fragmentationsignificant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.
In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical force.
4. Conclusion
Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
Since the Biotâ€“Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism ismuch better understood.
For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
Â« From Coulombâ€™s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to currentÂ»
https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current
Kuan Peng
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current[first error, snip]
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,
Jan
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current[first error, snip]
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,
Janhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current
I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon, or ringing or hysteresis, then "draw"
also includes how that's also a sort of model of "acceleration of the current", then for,
just like mechanics, "all the higher order derivatives of acceleration", and, then for
thusly, a "stop-derivative of draw".
Yeah these modern notions of "pesudomomentum" in "resonance theories"
really do start to help explain and also compute with "theories of sum potentials".
I.e. they're more fundamental, potential theories, for the Mach-ian and such.
Three-body problem: three two-body problems.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for[first error, snip]
electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's
third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,
Jan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current
I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,
Jan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current
I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces,
and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
like violating momentum conservation.
You really need to show how it all hangs together,
and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.
Jan
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:56:30â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,
Jan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current
I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces,
and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
like violating momentum conservation.
You really need to show how it all hangs together,
and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.
JanConsider for example Born's "Restless Universe":
the goalposts are always moving.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Born
"Somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept,
unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate
to open up the road." -- Max Born
"I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." -- Max Born
Kant advises that the "sublime" really is real, and only accessible to
an "object-sense", i.e. reason, so "it really is a continuum mechanics", maybe even logic.
This is only so much different from a usual reasonable empirical and sense-limited approach, of course for reproducibility and falsifiability being our science instead of only the empirical.
Over time, "intuition" and "formalism" have traded meanings as each
next major development in analysis, algebra, arithmetic, dot dot dot,
found itself "primary", first-order.
Then, here "mathematics _owes_ physics" and these days the current
trends call this "pseudomomentum" and "resonance theory", and of
course for a long time "theory of potentials", about "continuity laws" before-and-after "conservation laws".
I.e., "the natural law includes Kant's sublime, which is only accessible
via a mental object-sense".
Then Lagrangians as a matter of definition suffice to say "whatever
time according to a clock hypothesis has parameterized", as about Hamilton-Jacobi and out into Lagrangians. These are to satisfy
Einstein's model physicist and model philosopher, and Einstein's
attack on classical motion and altogether a "differential system".
Poincare's great intuitionism is not so much about "can't know
all the fields" as "it's still one field".
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:41:18â€¯AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:56:30â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:26:56?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz[first error, snip]
forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's
third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
There's draw, ....Not really. If there isn't one, it is out,
Jan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current
I imagine you're familiar with Gibbs' phenomenon,Yes, but you are moving goalposts.
The point was that it isn't hard to write down expressions for forces, and next conclude that your 'forces' do strange things,
like violating momentum conservation.
You really need to show how it all hangs together,
and giving a Lagrangian for the theory is the way to do that.
JanConsider for example Born's "Restless Universe":
the goalposts are always moving.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Born
"Somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept,
unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate
to open up the road." -- Max Born
"I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." -- Max Born
Kant advises that the "sublime" really is real, and only accessible to
an "object-sense", i.e. reason, so "it really is a continuum mechanics", maybe even logic.
This is only so much different from a usual reasonable empirical and sense-limited approach, of course for reproducibility and falsifiability being our science instead of only the empirical.
Over time, "intuition" and "formalism" have traded meanings as each
next major development in analysis, algebra, arithmetic, dot dot dot, found itself "primary", first-order.
Then, here "mathematics _owes_ physics" and these days the current
trends call this "pseudomomentum" and "resonance theory", and of
course for a long time "theory of potentials", about "continuity laws" before-and-after "conservation laws".
I.e., "the natural law includes Kant's sublime, which is only accessible via a mental object-sense".
Then Lagrangians as a matter of definition suffice to say "whatever
time according to a clock hypothesis has parameterized", as about Hamilton-Jacobi and out into Lagrangians. These are to satisfy
Einstein's model physicist and model philosopher, and Einstein's
attack on classical motion and altogether a "differential system".
Poincare's great intuitionism is not so much about "can't knowThe numerical methods what result area-averaging and these kinds of things, basically reflect on Clausius and Hooke. Most people are unawares such numerical
all the fields" as "it's still one field".
conceits are embedded so deeply in most sorts usual derivations eventually following.
It's kind of like a paraphrase of Poincare, "most are quite blissfully unawares".
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected.
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
PengKuan Em wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16â€¯AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected.Yes, it had. That's why fields are needed in E&M (unlike Newtonian mechanics in which
the momentum and energy accounting can be done by only considering the particles).
--
Jan
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current[first error, snip]
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?The suspense is killing me.
--
Jan
Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 Ã 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a Ã©crit :
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current[first error, snip]
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?The suspense is killing me.
--I have no idea about the Lagrangian.
Jan
PK
I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.
On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 04:27:42 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"
Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.
You mean needing a Lagrangian is tantamount to not having a
theory
Who knows what Peng's theory is, but if a theory needs a 'Lagrangian' its
a worthless theory.
Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 à 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
PengKuan Em wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law.[first error, snip]
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
Sorry for replying so late.
In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What
is the Lagrangian for my theory"
Reference shows QT relies on them.
I can well imagine it does. Because pretending that simple states
of polarisation arriving at various detectors is proof of Quantum magic, wave particle duality and spooky action at a distance...definitely needs
a book full of Lagrangians to pull of this fakery.
The many bogus quantum eraser experiments are evidence of this.
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 Ã 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a Ã©crit :
PengKuan Em wrote:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current[first error, snip]
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?
Jan
Sorry for replying so late.
In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?
If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?
(a scalar and/or vector potential)
Jan
On 10/9/23 3:45 PM, PengKuan Em wrote:
I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"Today that is tantamount to not having a theory.
Tom Roberts
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:49:07â€¯PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 Ã 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a Ã©crit :
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current[first error, snip]
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?The suspense is killing me.
--I have no idea about the Lagrangian.
Jan
PKIt's a particular setup of a functional system as entirely
parameterized by a single variable in _time_.
So, for something like Einstein's vision of a total field theory,
it's his notion that all the contents of space-time is a single
if arbitrarily complex "differential equation in _time_".
Then, whether solving for x or solving for t, i.e. "whether
meters per second or seconds per meter", first gets into
the notions as Einstein has, for example, of how to make
for the laws of motion, how the angular and linear go together
again, as what are the kinematic in the kinetic what's altogether
kinematic and only kinetic, it's a thing.
In Einstein's later theory that he calls Relativity, Einstein associates
a particular and unique "the time" to the entirety.
Then, whether objects "tip" or "topple", for example, or meet and part, reflects basically for _moments_ what results systems of _moments_,
in "moments, means, and metrics", moving.
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 Ã 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a Ã©crit : Sorry for replying so late.
In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?
If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?
(a scalar and/or vector potential)
Jan
Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 Ã 04:29:39 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a Ã©crit :
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:49:07â€¯PM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:
Le lundi 9 octobre 2023 Ã 21:31:10 UTC+2, JanPB a Ã©crit :
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:42:02â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PengKuan Em:
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism.[first error, snip]
However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current
elements do not respect the Newton's third law.
What is the Lagrangian for your theory?The suspense is killing me.
--I have no idea about the Lagrangian.
Jan
PKIt's a particular setup of a functional system as entirely
parameterized by a single variable in _time_.
So, for something like Einstein's vision of a total field theory,
it's his notion that all the contents of space-time is a single
if arbitrarily complex "differential equation in _time_".
Then, whether solving for x or solving for t, i.e. "whether
meters per second or seconds per meter", first gets into
the notions as Einstein has, for example, of how to make
for the laws of motion, how the angular and linear go together
again, as what are the kinematic in the kinetic what's altogether kinematic and only kinetic, it's a thing.
In Einstein's later theory that he calls Relativity, Einstein associates
a particular and unique "the time" to the entirety.
Then, whether objects "tip" or "topple", for example, or meet and part, reflects basically for _moments_ what results systems of _moments_,Thanks. What I have understood is that the space-time in General relativity is created with a Lagrangian.
in "moments, means, and metrics", moving.
PK
Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 Ã 10:23:36 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a Ã©crit :
PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le vendredi 29 septembre 2023 Ã 11:42:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder a Ã©crit : Sorry for replying so late.
Yes, Coulomb's field.In fact, I'm not familiar with Lagrangian and I have no idea about "What is the Lagrangian for my theory"OK, I'll simplify. Are your postulated forces related to fields?
If so, can those fields be derived from potentials?Yes, Coulomb's field is a gradian.
(a scalar and/or vector potential)
Jan
I think you mean "has a gradient", i.e. there's a particular path through
it that maximizes flow, but they aren't necessarily distinct, gradients.
The gradient is usually associated with the notion of steepest descent.
It's like Einstein is on the top of a ski hill, surveying it in his goggles. It's like "Einstein, where are you going with this" and he says "straight down".
Euh, space-time in relativity is just a continuous manifold and often let be "Minkowski space", then "Space-Time in Relativity" is the contents and according to that every object that can be considered a massy body dimplies Space-Time and thus establishes a Riemannian metric of its potential well while overall the Space-Time lattice has a Euclidean metric of common distances.
Then, the idea is that according to such dimples or the curvature, everything
goes in straight lines in that what results being the "geodesy", their "world-lines".
Then, kind of like "Lagrangians are any system parameterized by time", being that
Lagrangians are pretty general and have one parameter t for time, besides Lagrangians
in usual setups that are also sort of neatly compatible with Hamilton and Hamilton-Jacobi
_linear_ setups that have well knows means of solution, then the point of Einstein's
field equations (or, I only care about General Relativity), is that "whatever results is whatever
is down". This is the old "Einstein, is gravity down?" "Yeah, gravity is straight down."
Then, what Einstein and all of us call inertial-systems is any of these collections
of massy bodies considered as an observable, again I mostly care only about General Relativity,
because as Einstein's final theory that he gifted us has for Special Relativity, while the
geodesy is constantly updated, for massy bodies, and massless bodies, that the objects
governed by Special Relativity, or the light-like, only flow in their flux, massy bodies
move according to their inertia.
So, that something like "geometry is motion" or "the only constant is change or
as Heraclitus put it _panta rei_", I suppose you could imagine "wow the very existence
of a space-time is structured because it arises naturally as from a mathematical resources
of a continuum", that it's "created with a Lagrangian", most people would not necessarily
think so, though.
(Any errors of mine are my own, any errors of mine of others are, also.)
Le mercredi 11 octobre 2023 Ã 04:03:41 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson a Ã©crit :
Euh, space-time in relativity is just a continuous manifold and often let be
"Minkowski space", then "Space-Time in Relativity" is the contents and according to that every object that can be considered a massy body dimplies
Space-Time and thus establishes a Riemannian metric of its potential well while overall the Space-Time lattice has a Euclidean metric of common distances.
Then, the idea is that according to such dimples or the curvature, everything
goes in straight lines in that what results being the "geodesy", their "world-lines".
Then, kind of like "Lagrangians are any system parameterized by time", being that
Lagrangians are pretty general and have one parameter t for time, besides Lagrangians
in usual setups that are also sort of neatly compatible with Hamilton and Hamilton-Jacobi
_linear_ setups that have well knows means of solution, then the point of Einstein's
field equations (or, I only care about General Relativity), is that "whatever results is whatever
is down". This is the old "Einstein, is gravity down?" "Yeah, gravity is straight down."
Then, what Einstein and all of us call inertial-systems is any of these collections
of massy bodies considered as an observable, again I mostly care only about General Relativity,
because as Einstein's final theory that he gifted us has for Special Relativity, while the
geodesy is constantly updated, for massy bodies, and massless bodies, that the objects
governed by Special Relativity, or the light-like, only flow in their flux, massy bodies
move according to their inertia.
So, that something like "geometry is motion" or "the only constant is change or
as Heraclitus put it _panta rei_", I suppose you could imagine "wow the very existence
of a space-time is structured because it arises naturally as from a mathematical resources
of a continuum", that it's "created with a Lagrangian", most people would not necessarily
think so, though.
(Any errors of mine are my own, any errors of mine of others are, also.)I think space-time is not a good description of gravitation field.
PK
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:11:16â€¯AM UTC-7, PengKuan Em wrote:physical sciences a discrepancy often hides in it new understanding or unexpected breakthrough. For solving this problem, we give a purely theoretical derivation of magnetic force which respects the Newton's third law in the case of current elements and
Abstract: The Lorentz force law is fundamental for electromagnetism. However, it is known long ago that the Lorentz forces between two current elements do not respect the Newton's third law. This seemingly harmless flaw had never been corrected. In
Nevertheless, breaking the Newton's third law does not fit scientific standard, even for the Lorentz forces law which is fundamental.1. Introduction
The Figure 1 shows a case where dFa is perpendicular to dFb , so, dFa + dFb ï‚¹ 0. This problem was known for longtime. People justify that the Lorentz forces that two closed loop currents act on each other do satisfy the Newton's third law.
undergoes relativistic effects and varies with velocity.We will try to solve this problem with a new magnetic force law that we have derived with pure theory. The new law is derived from the Coulombâ€™s law which defines the Coulombâ€™s force for fixed charges. For moving electrons, the Coulombâ€™s force
relativistic dynamic effect and changing distance effect. So, we have theoretically proven this relation and in consequence, the relation mu0eps0c2 = 1 is now a theoretical law.2. Consequences
â€¢ The relationï€ mu0 eps0 c2 = 1
Historically, the values of mu0, eps0 and the speed of light c were measured experimentally. It was James Clerk Maxwell who noticed that mu0eps0c2 = 1 . So, it was an empirical law. In our derivation this relation emerged naturally from both
thus, lacks this term. So, it cannot satisfy Newton's third law. Thanks to the fully theoretical derivation, the magnetic force law (49) contains the missing last term and consequently, satisfies Newton's third law.â€¢ Biotâ€“Savart law
The equation (58) is identical to the Biotâ€“Savart law (59) but is derived with pure theory. So, the Biotâ€“Savart law becomes a theoretical law too.
â€¢ Lorentz force law
(61) is the Lorentz force that one dIb exerts on dIa . So, we have derived the Lorentz force law from the Coulombâ€™s law.
â€¢ Magnetic force vs. Newton's third law
The sum of the magnetic force (49) and its back force is zero. So, the magnetic force law (49) satisfies the Newton's third law for current elements . Being an experimental law, the Lorentz force law does not describe a force that does not exist and
driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, the driving force is parallel to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper Â«Showing tangential magnetic3. Experimental evidences
â€¢ My experiments
The first experiment is Â«Continuous rotation of a circular coil experimentÂ» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow . In this video we see a round coil that rotates in its plane. Because the coil is round the
circular motor using tangential force and the equivalence with homopolar motor Â» .I have also made a Â« Circular motor driven by tangential magnetic force Â» . The video of this experiment is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGUaJqa6nU&list=UUuJXMstqPh8VY4UYqDgwcvQ . The technical details of this experiment is: Â« Detail of my
force.â€¢ Experiment of wire fragmentation
In 1961, Jan Nasilowski in Poland has carried out an experiment which consisted of passing a huge current in a thin wire. The wire exploded into small pieces. The interesting thing is that the wires were not melted but teared apart by mechanical
significant. So, it could be used as the driving force for new devices.4. Conclusion
Because the new law gives the same prediction as the Lorentz force law for closed loop currents, it works for electromagnetism as the Lorentz force law. However, the component of magnetic force parallel to the current is new and shown to be rather
much better understood.Since the Biotâ€“Savart law, the Lorentz force law and the relation mu0 eps0 c2 = 1are derived with pure theory, the deep mechanism that transforms electric force into magnetic force is revealed to be the two relativistic effects, electromagnetism is
For more detail of this study please read the complete paper here:
Â« From Coulombâ€™s force to magnetic force and experiments that show magnetic force parallel to currentÂ»
https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulombs_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_magnetic_force_parallel_to_current
Kuan PengLet's see, where am I here, ....
Ahem, ahem. Ahem: is a brief term, to introduce introduction.
Usually followed by an address, I sit in full respect that indeed, indeed, mathematics for mathematical physics, one of the best parts of mathematics, for mathematical physics, is that mathematics is not a science.
There is a science, of mathematics, this is just certainly to allow that
all so follows, already is one, a "what there is of it, mathematics".
So, what I have done is put GR and QM together with my theory in
the middle, "none", or "fall gravity under potential, the field's fall's force",
putting GR and QM together, usually the force of gravity.
I research who had already written that way, just writing how it's written, besides where it went where it goes, Fitzgerald, for Einstein and Lorentz, and Maxwell, and, put all space contraction into fall also "Lorentz-Fitzgerald",
and "Hamilton-Lagrangians", again, adding nothing to "theory", just pointing out what there is of it.
So, thusly, I had a giant and huge advantage of an entirety of people who just want to "know" science "to be right where others are wrong, science", to show off, all in the "theory", of course, all, in, the theory.
Then what I've done with it is Einstein's Newton's, into classical motion, which are Galilean and Lorentzian, that develop in time Galilean, classically Fitzgerald is zero then where Lagrangians result, non-zero.
Involved and included is mathematical foundations along the line,
Cantor's, reworked with Aristotle's and now with Nyquist, about
three terms of definition, each right in radius. So, continuity laws,
in time and in Hamilton's Lagrangians, conservation laws, are open conservation laws, in continuity laws, defining systems that are open
and closed, with closed only following from high pressure.
So, of course all the formulas and semantics of "ordinary set theory" including all "uncountable ordinals", are true, and "all of the formulas
are the same", "axiomatic set theory into descriptive set theory really defines things", besides "law: rule".
Then, time, as a usual regular continuous course, is entirely regulating Langrangians, whatever is a science or a model of a system, "closed by open".
So, Ross Finlayson claims his "A" Theory brings, all this, same? Sure, doesn't say anything about it at all.
Thusly what was called supergravity and shadow gravity and fall gravity,
for gravity and pull and push gravity and magnetism or short-range forces,
I theorize it out underneath as "fall gravity", in terms of that gravity in its
range, of course makes things stay in their default open range,
again, to add range into forces, what are inertial systems themselves.
So, if you've heard of shadow gravity and supergravity, only the "outside" forces of gravity besides "gravity proportional inverse square, see also acceleration",
the space of gravity in mass terms.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 308 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 100:32:55 |
Calls: | 6,923 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,385 |
Messages: | 5,434,728 |