"As a theoretical physicist turned antenna engineer, I would not have been able to write this book on electromagnetism if I didn’t have extensive hands-on experience in subjects like ultrawideband antennas and near-field wireless systems."
This is excellent. Mechanical, hands-on engineering. Well done indeed.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
It’s a bit ironic that the book that you mentioned (Electromagnetic Theory) has the following passage:
The author (JULIUS ADAMS STRATTON) is firmly convinced that the transition must be made from quantum electrodynamics toward classical theory, rather than in the reverse direction. Whatever form the equations of quantum electrodynamics ultimately assume, their statistical average over large numbers of atoms must lead to Maxwell's equations.
Hmm. Pilot-waves might (arguably) provide some assistance when it comes to intuition or philosophical interpretations of QM, but they are nevertheless essentially redundant and do not assist in calculations or predictions. Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but why would one want to clutter up their understanding of EM with (in practical terms) such a spurious feature as pilot waves?
Because if you study electromagnetism, you'll find it working on a macroscopic scale in almost exactly the same way that the pilot wave model envisions on an atomic scale. Fields guide the flow of energy. That's the point of my book. Having a simple physical model around which one can organize one's understanding simplifies understanding complex systems.
The EM fields do not "guide" the flow of (EM) energy, they /specify/ it: you use the fields to construct whatever components of the stress-energy tensor you happen to find interesting (perhaps with Poynting-theorem expression, if you prefer).
I remain unconvinced that importing a discredited (ie QM "pilot wave") language into EM is likely to help even slightly, not only on (a) the "fields guide" grounds you mention, but also regarding (b) achieving wider acceptance of the benefits you claim.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
I had to look up a lot of definitions here. So the difference between pilot-wave theory and the Copenhagen Interpretation, is that pilot-wave says there's a superhighway that energy is guided by, and Copenhagen says that particles are just all over the place in a cloud of probability until someone looks at them and they randomly choose a spot based on whose looking?
I’ve been looking forward to this book ever since you told me this summer you were working on it. I didn’t expect to have the opportunity to read it in pre-publication this way, though! It’s been a dozen years since I put my physicist hat on the shelf, and this will be a welcome opportunity to dust it off.
Where's Nikola Tesla in this story, Hans?
He shows up a bit, but his contributions were more in AC electricity which isn’t a primary focus of my Fields & Energy narrative. https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/461-how-does-radiation-work
Thanks Hans. Very prolific and interesting.
"As a theoretical physicist turned antenna engineer, I would not have been able to write this book on electromagnetism if I didn’t have extensive hands-on experience in subjects like ultrawideband antennas and near-field wireless systems."
This is excellent. Mechanical, hands-on engineering. Well done indeed.
Interesting topic.
I guess to get the full picture you should research gases and their properties.
According to unconventional theories, gasses are the glue of our cosmos, all electro and magnetic phenomenas are happening because of them.
Electrochemistry is an other “since long” hidden branch of physics which should get more attention.
Thank you for sharing.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/fields-and-energy
It’s a bit ironic that the book that you mentioned (Electromagnetic Theory) has the following passage:
The author (JULIUS ADAMS STRATTON) is firmly convinced that the transition must be made from quantum electrodynamics toward classical theory, rather than in the reverse direction. Whatever form the equations of quantum electrodynamics ultimately assume, their statistical average over large numbers of atoms must lead to Maxwell's equations.
I missed that. What page is that on?
Vii of the preface. At the bottom of the second paragraph on the page.
Re: "This perspective leads directly to the "pilot-wave" interpretation of quantum mechanics. "
.. you say that as if such a connection is an advantage... :-)
Adding a smiley face to your attempt to mick someone fools absolutely nobody.
Yes, I do.
Hmm. Pilot-waves might (arguably) provide some assistance when it comes to intuition or philosophical interpretations of QM, but they are nevertheless essentially redundant and do not assist in calculations or predictions. Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but why would one want to clutter up their understanding of EM with (in practical terms) such a spurious feature as pilot waves?
Because if you study electromagnetism, you'll find it working on a macroscopic scale in almost exactly the same way that the pilot wave model envisions on an atomic scale. Fields guide the flow of energy. That's the point of my book. Having a simple physical model around which one can organize one's understanding simplifies understanding complex systems.
The EM fields do not "guide" the flow of (EM) energy, they /specify/ it: you use the fields to construct whatever components of the stress-energy tensor you happen to find interesting (perhaps with Poynting-theorem expression, if you prefer).
I remain unconvinced that importing a discredited (ie QM "pilot wave") language into EM is likely to help even slightly, not only on (a) the "fields guide" grounds you mention, but also regarding (b) achieving wider acceptance of the benefits you claim.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
I had to look up a lot of definitions here. So the difference between pilot-wave theory and the Copenhagen Interpretation, is that pilot-wave says there's a superhighway that energy is guided by, and Copenhagen says that particles are just all over the place in a cloud of probability until someone looks at them and they randomly choose a spot based on whose looking?
I’ve been looking forward to this book ever since you told me this summer you were working on it. I didn’t expect to have the opportunity to read it in pre-publication this way, though! It’s been a dozen years since I put my physicist hat on the shelf, and this will be a welcome opportunity to dust it off.
Hope you enjoy it!
When signed copy offered?!
Subscribers to the Substack will be the first to know!
I love the william Gilbert quote, I also noted that to me at least Gilbert looks like you!
I suppose that might be... from my mom's side.