3.5 Summary and Conclusions
Maxwell's Theory, and the Importance of a Thoroughly Conscious Ignorance
Early investigators cast electromagnetism in a Newtonian mold, accepting the point-mass, action-at-a-distance interpretation as a starting point. In this view, objects over here influenced objects over there with no intermediary mechanism. By meticulous experimentation, Coulomb, Ampère, Gauss, Faraday, and others uncovered the details of how electricity and magnetism work. Even some who made the most significant theoretical leaps were themselves also experimentalists. Pioneering geophysicist and experimentalist, Carl Friedrich Gauss, devised and employed sophisticated techniques to measure geomagnetic fields in addition to devising the mathematical relation that came to be known as Gauss’s Law. Gauss was reputed to possess a certain mathematical talent as well. Maxwell repeated many of Cavendish’s early experiments, acquainting himself with the experimental basis behind electromagnetic theory.
And what was that theory?
Electric field lines originate on positive charge and terminate on negative charge. In the absence of charge, electric fields form closed loops. The direction of the lines indicates the direction of the electric force per charge; the density or concentration of the lines is proportional to the intensity of the force. Magnetic field lines show the direction of the torque that would align a small compass needle. Fields of both kinds tend to spread out to fill the available space. Electric field lines are perpendicular to conductors. Current – moving charge – is the source of a magnetic field, and the magnetic field curls around a current in a closed loop in the orientation determined by the right-hand rule. There’s a component of the magnetic field that depends on the current and another component that depends on how quickly the current is changing. A changing current – accelerating or decelerating charge – gives rise to an expanding ring of magnetic field that ripples out in a manner first envisioned by Faraday in 1832.
Maxwell consolidated the work of Ampère, Ohm, Faraday, Gauss, and others to compile his laws of electromagnetism. Adding the concept of displacement current, he made the critical connection between electromagnetism and optics. He proved that electromagnetic disturbances propagate at the speed of light, and he worked out the mathematical theory of electromagnetic waves.
What were the key features of Maxwell’s approach?
Maxwell studied the overlooked experimental research of Cavendish and constructed elaborate conceptual models to try to understand how electromagnetism functions. “If we are ever to discover the laws of nature,” Maxwell explained, “we must do so by obtaining the most accurate acquaintance with the facts of nature and not by dressing up in philosophical language the loose opinions of men who had no knowledge of the facts which throw most light on these laws” [[i]]. He avoided making unnecessary hypotheses, and he made clear that he regarded these models as merely conceptual tools. Nevertheless, he was convinced that somehow energy exists stored in the space around charges and currents.
Meanwhile, Ohm, Kirchhoff, and others were developing the theoretical basis of electronics, and telegraphy was emerging as a leading-edge application of electromagnetic science.
The mathematical details involved in applying the complicated equations are best left to a formal course in electromagnetism. However, Faraday’s field approach allows for an intuition of what they mean and how they work that doesn’t rely on a rigorous mathematical understanding.
Acceptance of these revolutionary ideas took time. Faraday’s simple picture did not appeal to professionals steeped in the mathematics of potential theory who considered the counter-intuitive action-at-a-distance model validated by the success of their formulas at predicting the results of experiments. And novel ideas are almost always accepted with reluctance. One historian had this to say about André Marie Ampère’s discoveries:
It might be thought that these discoveries of Ampère would be welcomed with great enthusiasm. As a matter of fact, however, new discoveries that are really novel always have, as almost their surest index, the fact that contemporaries refuse to accept them. The more versed a man is in the science in which the discovery comes, the more likely is he to delay his acceptance of the novelty. This is not so surprising, since, as a rule, new discoveries are nearly always very simple expressions of great truths that seem obvious once they are accepted yet have never been thought of. They mean, therefore, that men who consider themselves distinguished in a particular science have missed some easily discoverable phenomenon or its full significance, and so, to accept a new discovery in their department of learning, men must confess their own lack of foresight [[ii]].
Ampère’s difficulties securing acceptance for his ideas paled in comparison to those of successful innovators, like Ohm, let alone those whose promising careers were completely crushed, like those of Herapath and Waterston. As Maxwell noted, “…thoroughly conscious ignorance … is the prelude to every real advance in knowledge” [[iii]]. The ability to set aside preconceptions and give a fair hearing to revolutionary new ideas is almost as rare as revolutionary new ideas, themselves. Skilled practitioners, confident and arrogant in their competency, regularly turn a blind eye to the advances in theory or practice that could take their art to the next level of understanding.
Maxwell died at age 48 in 1879 leaving behind him a legacy of electromagnetic pessimism. FitzGerald and others wrestling with Maxwell’s theory to try to make sense of it would have to carry on without the help of their master. We can only speculate how Maxwell might have matured his theory if he’d lived another couple of decades. FitzGerald and Maxwell’s other successors however, a band of intrepid, independent-thinking disciples that historian Bruce J. Hunt called, The Maxwellians, would follow and extend the path Maxwell blazed and come close to bringing electromagnetism to fruition [[iv]]. Through real-world exposure to the applied electromagnetic science of telegraphy, they would learn how to make FitzGerald’s possibility of electromagnetic waves into a reality.
Next time, 4.0 Electromagnetism Comes of Age: Possibility Becomes Reality
Follow Online:
You may follow me online in other places as well:
Telegram: 𝔸𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕔𝕫𝕒𝕣'𝕤 𝔸𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕞
Gab: @aetherczar
Twitter: @aetherczar
Amazon: Hans G. Schantz
References
[i] James Clerk Maxwell, "On Action at a Distance," Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Vol. VII, reprinted in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell (W.D. Niven, ed.), (New York: Dover, 1953?) pp. 318. Originally published, 1890.
[ii] O’Reilly, Michael Francis (writing as Brother Potamian), and James Joseph Walsh, Makers of Electricity, New York: Fordham University Press, 1909, p. 251.
[iii] Maxwell, James Clerk, “The Kinetic Theory of Gases,” Nature, July 26, 1877, p. 245.
[iv] Hunt, Bruce J., The Maxwellians, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*YouTube presentation of above arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s>
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
The reason for this strange behavior of light appears to be due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and due to Fourier Theory. When light is created, both it's frequency and position are exactly known, so it's momentum, velocity, and wavelength are infinite. But as light propagates away from the source, its wavelength becomes more clear, and starts to become somewhat clear at 1 wavelength from the source. But only at infinite distance from the source is its wavelength exactly known due to Fourier theory, so only at infinite distance is the following relation exactly true: wavelength x frequency = c. Since infinite distance does not exist, then light never becomes exactly c, even at extremely large distances from the source. For more details see my YouTube video linked in my original post below.