🚀 go-pugleaf

   : mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

> Let me try to tone down the level of invective in this discussion by
> not being sarcastic for once.  I will instead try to make the discussion
> somewhat more precise by asking snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us what
> is actually being claimed.  He has posted a demonstration
> that Ohm's Law, applied in a very literal way in its large-scale,
> integrated form, implies instantaneous communication by means of the
> placement of a load across the oscillating voltage in a continuous
> electromagnetic wave.  It is claimed that this will produce an
> immediate effect at the transmitter.  Others have posted that
> this is contrary to the statement, derivable from Maxwell's equations,
> that such influences propagate only at c; and that the apparent
> contradiction between Maxwell's equations and the laws of Ohm and
> Kirchoff come from the extra assumptions used to derive them from
> Maxwell.

> So, snarfy@cruzio, do you claim that:

> 1) These objections are incorrect, and Maxwell's equations actually
> *do* permit such instantaneous effects?  If so, I'm sure we would
> be interested in seeing how.


            Emitter                                 Absorber

            A  *                                     B  *

    It may be  that  Maxwell's  equations  do  not  encompass  the  concepts
   involved,   since   they   have   to   do  with  the  characteristics  of
   electromagnetic propagation in the  direction  emitter  ->  absorber.  In
   other  words  ,once  something  becomes  an  absorber  of electromagnetic
   radiation it too becomes an emitter and what was at a previous  time  the
   emitter  at  that point is now another absorber (from the reference frame
   of the first absorber ,object B).


    Any  symmetry  between an emitter and absorber ,as in resonance ,demands
   that both  the  ``retarded''  and  ``advanced''  solutions  to  Maxwell's
   equations  be put on equal footing . The retarded solutions usually refer
   to the sequence cause -> effect , while the advanced solutions are  often
   referred  to  in  terms  of a backward sequence in time, effect -> cause;
   which solutions, if applied, make it appear that the sequence in question
   violates the law of causality. Again ,to avoid this apparent conflict  in
   the  context of Maxwell's equations we must reverse the names emitter and
   absorber.   Therefore  ,  it  is  the  elementary  interaction  that   is
   fundamental , not the cause - effect relationship of emitter to absorber.



    In  an  ideal  resonance  condition  most  of the energy between coupled
   elements is contained in a standing wave field that can be quantitatively
   represented in terms of E (joules) or, more accurately VARS*t (volt  amps
   reactive*time).  Changing  the value of one of the reactive elements will
   have an effect on the E or VAR*T value of this entire field which must be
   compensated for by some equal and opposite reaction on the  part  of  the
   complementary  reactive  element  at  the  other end.  If energy is to be
   conserved (according to the law of conservation of mass and energy)  then
   any  delay  in  this  reaction  would  result  in  consequences  that are
   mathematically unacceptable if the reactive elements continue to  operate
   during  the  delay. In other words, depending on the nature of the change
   at a reactive element ,you end up with + or - value of  VARS  *  T(delay)
   which  is  either   incompatible  with conservation laws or ohm's law,(as
   ohm's law is generically defined as Energy flow = Force /  impediment  to
   force). On the other hand ,if the response at the other end is assumed to
   be instantaneous , this conflict does NOT arise.



> 2) The truly fundamental laws  of  electrodynamics  are  *not*  Maxwell's
>    equations,  but  Ohm's  Law  and Kirchoff's Law?


    Inasmuch as Maxwell's equations correctly predict phenomena , I have  no
   argument  that they are not fundamental to that branch of electrodynamics
   concerned with those phenomena. I am not aware of any  attempt  to  apply
   Maxwell's  equations  to  resonance  conditions (where doing so would not
   have the consequences outlined above). As far as Ohm's law is concerned ,
   it  is  emphasized  that  we're generalizing the meaning to a fundamental
   function that is applicable to many different phenomena, for example:

       I=V/r , I=V/z , flow=pressure/restriction , work=force/load.. etc.


> If so,  then  you  are  not  reasoning  within  the  usual  framework  of
> electrodynamics,  but  are  instead  proposing  a radically new theory of
> electromagnetism .

      I'm not sure by whose standards you are applying the term ``usual''.By
   my own standards and others who work with actual electronic components it
   would  be  unusual  to  do  design  calculations  starting with Maxwell's
   equations on through  their  formulaic  derivations  (although  I'm  sure
   that's possible) . It's simply that we've learned to get by with standard
   formulas  that  may  be  (or  may not be , for all I know) derivable from
   Maxwell.  I know of no derivation from Maxwell's equations  that  are  in
   basic conflict with the generalized form of ohm's law, above.


> (whether it was you or somebody else who first proposed  it  is  not  the
> issue  here).  We  can then argue about whether there is any experimental
> evidence to  support  this  theory.

   You also have the option of arguing the reverse (whether or not there is
   any  experimental evidence which shows that the generalized form of ohm's
   law is incorrect) .


>  Orthodoxies have of course been incorrect before.

   No comment .

>  3) That you frame no hypotheses, but rather report an experimental
> result that implies instantaneous communication by this means?  If
> so, then this is such a radical result that the theorizing about it
> should probably await replication of the result; and we'd like to
> hear who did the experiment and where we can find out about it.


    The  hypothesis  is framed as above . As far as experimental results are
   concerned  ,  I  am  at  this  point  precluded  by  an  implied  consent
   contractual   obligation   from   specifically  acknowledging  that  such
   experiments have indeed occurred. I am giving you  what  I  can  at  this
   time.  Going  into  the  specific  details of the nature of this contract
   would lead us  off  into  what  would  probably  amount  to  a  political
   discussion not appropriate for this forum.

  -snarfy