Short History of the Discarding of the Heaviside Dark Energy

3.9.1 Independent Work by Heaviside and Poynting

Let us now see how the enormity of the EM energy flow from the dipolar source was treated in the early electrodynamic theory, and how it is treated in the received view today.

89 This is recognized by leading electrodynamicists, but not by most electrical engineers building power systems!

In the 1880s after Maxwell was already deceased, Poynting {216} and Heaviside {217} independently (and rather simultaneously) discovered EM energy flow through space. Before that, the concept did not appear in physics. Poynting {216} published prestigiously, while at first Heaviside published more obscurely {217}, then finally more prestigiously {218, 219}.

With respect to circuits, from the beginning Poynting assumed only that small amount of EM energy flow that enters the circuit from the surrounding space. Here are Poynting's {220} own words:

"This paper describes a hypothesis as to the connexion between current in conductors and the transfer ofelectric and magnetic inductions in the surrounding field. The hypothesis is suggested by the mode of transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field, resulting from Maxwell's equations investigated in a formerpaper ("Phil. Trans., vol. 175, pp. 343-361, 1884). It was there shown that according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory the energy which is dissipated in the circuit is transferred through the medium, always moving perpendicularly to the plane containing the lines ofelectric and magnetic intensity, and that it comes into the conductor from the surrounding insulator, not flowing along the wire.

As can be seen, Poynting considered only the energy flow actually entering the wire, and subsequently being dissipated in the circuit. Hence Poynting never considered the huge EM energy flow component around the circuit that is not diverged, misses the circuit entirely, does not contribute to the energy dissipated by the circuit, and is wasted. In short, there is a vast "dark energy flow" associated with every dipolar interaction — a huge energy flow component which Poynting never considered.

Heaviside's theory was an extension of what Poynting had considered, and Heaviside also corrected Poynting as to the direction of flow. Heaviside was fully aware of the enormity of the "dark energy" flow missed by Poynting, but had absolutely no explanation as to where such a startlingly large EM energy flow — pouring from the terminals of every dipole, generator, or battery — could possibly be coming from. Consequently, Heaviside was very cautious in referring to it, usually doing so only obliquely in terms of the angles and components. In Heaviside's {221} own words:

"It [the energy transferflow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire... . Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical. This difference ofa quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature ofthe electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the convergence ofenergy into the wire.

As can be seen, Heaviside was fully aware that the energy flow diverged into the wire was only a minuscule fraction of the total. He was fully aware that the remaining component was so huge that the energy flow vector remaining — after the divergence of the Poynting component into the circuit — was still almost parallel to the conductors. However, he had no explanation at all of where such an enormous and baffling energy flow could possibly originate.

Had Heaviside strongly stated the enormity of the nondiverged component of the energy flow, he would have been viciously attacked and scientifically discredited as a perpetual motion advocate. His words were measured and cautious, but there is no doubt that he recognized the enormity of the nondiverged EM energy flow component.

We have chosen to call that huge unaccounted component the "Heaviside dark energy component" in his honor, since he actually discovered it. By the word "dark" we mean "unaccounted", which hides it from scientific view. We have also nominated it as the previously unsuspected source of the extra gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together.

3.9.2 Lorentz Disposed of the Problem Rather than Solving It

Lorentz then entered the EM energy flow scene to face the terrible problem so quietly raised by Heaviside. Lorentz understood the presence of the Poynting component, and also of the extra Heaviside component, but could find no explanation for the startling, enormous magnitude of the EM energy pouring out of the terminals of the power source (pouring from the source dipole) {222} if the Heaviside component was accounted. Had he retained and advanced this enormous dark energy flow component, even the great Lorentz would have been castigated as a perpetual motion advocate who did not accept the law of energy conservation. Even today, when one points out that far more energy is pouring out of the terminals of every generator than the small mechanical energy input to the shaft, one is immediately labeled a raving lunatic — even though the Bohren experiment {24} clearly proves the presence of an extra energy flow component not usually intercepted. It is not difficult to understand how such a bombshell would have been received in the 1880s! At least today, we have particle physics and its broken symmetry of opposite charges, together with its active vacuum, to explain where the excess energy comes from and how.

Unable to solve the dark energy flow problem by any rational means, Lorentz found a clever way to avoid it. He reasoned that the nondiverged Heaviside component was "physically insignificant" (his term) because it did not even enter the circuit. Since it did nothing of any physical consequences, or so he reasoned, then it could just be discarded.

So Lorentz simply integrated the entire energy flow vector (the vector representing the sum of both the Heaviside nondiverged component and the Poynting diverged component) around an assumed closed surface enclosing any volume of interest {223}. A priori, this mathematical procedure discards the dark Heaviside energy flow component because of its nondivergence. It retains only the intercepted Poynting diverged component that enters the circuit.

A century later, electrodynamicists are still happily avoiding the dark energy flow problem by continuing to use the Lorentz integration procedure {224} to dispose of all but the Poynting component that enters the circuit and is then dissipated by the circuit. As a result, the "Poynting energy flow" has come to be loosely regarded as "the" entire EM energy Mow, though electrodynamicists find it necessary to give stringent warnings about it. E.g., Panofsky and Phillips {225} state it this way:

"...only the entire surface integral of N [their notation for the Poynting vector] contributes to the energy balance. Paradoxical results may be obtained ifone tries to identify the Poynting vector with the energyflowper unit area at any point."

Most electrodynamicists note the freedom to add a vector — few call it an energy flow vector, though that is the type of vector being discussed, and one must add apples to apples — which has zero divergence. Jones {226} states:

"It is possible to introduce the Poynting vector S, defined by S = ExH, and regard it as the intensity ofenergy flow at a point. This procedure is open to criticism since we could add to S any vector whose divergence is zero without affecting[the basic integration procedure s result]."

Jackson {227} says it even more plainly, and also uses Lorentz's "no physical significance" argument for disposing of any energy flow vector with a zero divergence. Quoting:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences."

Any energy flow vector, which is the curl of a vector field, will have zero divergence, by elementary vector algebra. In short, to be pertinent at all, it must be an energy flow vector (since energy flow is what S = E x H is all about. Since the curl of any vector has no divergence a priori, then any energy flow vector that is a curl of a vector field will be part of the Heaviside dark energy flow component, rather than part of the Poynting energy flow component. It will also be discarded by Lorentz's closed surface integration.

We refer the reader again to Figures 2-5 and 2-6 in Chapter 2, p. 113-114. Electrodynamicists err in assuming that such a divergent free vector (energy flow) can have no physical consequences. If one inserts additional intercepting charges into that formerly nondiverged energy flow component, the charges will immediately diverge some of the formerly nondiverged energy flow around them and hence "collect additional energy". In other words, "divergence" is the result of a physical process, accomplished by intercepting charges. We can easily change "nondiverging" energy to diverging energy, by simply interacting it with charges. We can also "bunch" the energy flow lines closer together (as in some waveguides), thereby increasing the local flow intensity and the concomitant energy collected by each intercepting charge in the densified energy flow stream.

So whether the Heaviside energy flow component is of physical consequence or not, depends on whether or not we "add more sail to the sailboat", or "add more sailboats" before the wind. That is most certainly a useful physical consequence, and with a little ingenuity we ought to be able to use it to power loads "for free" or nearly so. There are other consequences also, as we used in deriving the negentropy of the dipole or charge. There the input of a non-Poynting energy flow component certainly has universal and physical significance — e.g., to the curving of local spacetime, conditioning the active vacuum, furnishing all the energy to form the EM fields and potentials from their source charges, etc.

Schwarz {228} expresses it this way:

"There will be manyopportunities in which the interpretation ofE x H as a rate of flow of energy per unit area will be profitable. In most cases ofpractical interest, such an interpretation is valid, although it must always he kept in mind that only the integral of S over a closed surface can be physically measured... Just how it is that the connections to the energy source, say a battery, are at the ends ofthe wire, yet energyflows in through the sides, should be pondered by the reader.

Note carefully that Schwartz recognizes the difference between the observed (deviated or diverged) part of the EM energy flow and the unobserved nondeviated or nondiverged part of it. However, he did not follow it up and apply it back to the basic "definition" of the field and potential as what are diverged from them.

For recommended changes to the Poynting vector, Jones {229} presents many conditions the changed vector must fulfill. Then he falls back on the Lorentz closed surface method again, but without realizing that he therefore (i) first includes both the diverged and nondiverged component, and (ii) invokes a procedure that arbitrarily discards the nondiverged component. In thus disposing of the problem, Jones says:

"It does not seem likely that an expression satisfying all these conditions will be simple fortunately, we are rarely concerned with the energy flow at a point. In most applications we need the rate at which energy is crossing a closed surface."

Finally, we note that even today, a debate on what the Poynting vector is or should be, is still politely ongoing. As an example, it has been ongoing for more than 40 years in the American Journal ofPhysics alone as well as in otherjournals {230a-230i}. One thing is clear: The Poynting vector does not represent the total energy flow at right angles through a square meter in space surrounding the conductors of the electrical circuit. It is, however, the component orfraction of that actual energy flow through the square meter in force-field-free form that will subsequently be diverged and collected in the circuit in force-field form and dissipated in the circuit loads and losses.

Saving Power, Saving The World

Saving Power, Saving The World

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Helping Save Power. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To How To Use Renewable Energy As Your Alternative Power Suppliers.

Get My Free Ebook


Responses

  • lennox
    What is Heaviside nondiverged component?
    7 years ago
  • Markku Kettunen
    Who was heaviside place?
    7 years ago

Post a comment