🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4011@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>
>   : mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>
>> 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).

     No actually this is incorrect.  Maxwell's equations are perfectly happy
     with solutions that run backwards in time from absorber to emitter.
     We have simply never seen such solutions (unless you believe in
     symmetric theories such as Feynman and Wheeler's).  However, this
     still does not abrogate the fundamental limit.

>    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.

     Actually, if you have advanced actions you not only 'appear' to violate
     causality, you do.  But this is beside the point.  One must
     show that this happens first since all of our experience and 
     theoretical development suggests that it does not.

>    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.

     This is silly.  Delays show up all the time in 'reactive elements'.
     These have been measured and codified and are the reason that we have
     things like Maxwell's equations instead of Weber's or Neumann's
     equations.  In fact, if you want to assert infinite action at a distance
     of the same form as those fellows then the electrical production 
     of electromagnetic waves is not possible (Fitzgerald's scientific
     papers, pp 90-92 where he proves this for Weber's and Neumann's
     action-at-a-distance theories in a rather general manner.  A historical
     note: he also thought he had 'proved' this for Maxwell's theory
     on the assumption that Maxwell's statements that his and the older
     theories were mathematically identical.  They were not.)

>> 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.

     The problem is that these relations only apply when there is no
     'compressiblity' or 'delay' in the system.  As far as resonance goes,
     Maxwell's equations apply perfectly well with the Lorentz 
     (retardation) condition in place.  They predict that all actions
     are limited by lightspeed.
>
>> 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.

    The problem is that it *is* in conflict with those phenomena
    observed, if you assume that action at a distance occurs at 
    infinite speed.  It is also in conflict with Maxwell's equations.

>> (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) .

     Your assumption about signal speed has never been seen in any physical
     system.  Unless we see otherwise, why should we believe that 
     what you are asserting can happen?

>>  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.

     Actual faster-than-light processes have been reported many
     times in the relevant literature.  Such claims are certainly not
     impressive unless clairified and replicated (or alternatively,
     a fortune is made off of the Sony UltraLightMan).

     To look in on your competitors try IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters
     1:374 (1992) with responses in same 2:199 (1992) (or G.C. Giakos's
     dissertation from Marquette available from UMI).  I still have not
     satisfied myself about what is wrong with this one.

                                dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926