EM Foundations Are Incomplete and Contain Errors

In any model, there are many assumptions. Even when a model is wellfitted and well-developed, it still applies only when the foundations assumptions on which it is based are true or are not too much in error. Whenever one or more of the fundamental assumptions is violated by phenomena uncovered, then there is a new class of phenomena where the model does not hold, or does not hold well and is only an approximation at best. In that case, either the existing unsatisfactory model must be improved and advanced, or a new model must be constructed.

Great scientific minds continue to point out Einstein's beautiful principle in different words. E.g., expressing the thought of Stephen Hawking, one of the great physicists of our day:

"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs. Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As stated by George Zebrowski] {2}.

Excellent scientists — Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Evans, Barrett, and many others — have indeed pointed out that classical EM theory is seriously flawed. In the words of Bunge {3}:

"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."

The author also found it imperative to return to many of the original seminal papers of physics, particularly in electrodynamics. The major concepts in those papers led to the present classical EM model. This was particularly true of the work of Poynting {4a, 4b} and Heaviside {5a-5c}, who independently and simultaneously arrived at the notion of the flow of EM energy through space5. Their work occurred in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already deceased. It also necessitated reviewing Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, where Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all permissible COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.

The science of this "EM energy flow through space" is controversial to this day. Which is the real "EM energy flow vector" as such has never been

5 As we shall point out later, the concept of energy flowing through 3-space is a non sequitur and requires substantial revision today, to be consistent with the nature of observation and the fact that no observable continuously persists. Any observation is an instantaneous frozen 3-space "snapshot" at a single instant, gone the next instant when almost immediately replaced by another such frozen snapshot. In between observations, not mass but masstime exists. The same is true for 3-space, which only exists as the output of an observation process. Prior to observation, spacetime exists.

adequately resolved, and there continue to be polite debates about it {6}. One should also be aware that physicists really do not know what many things — including energy — are. The definitions of these fundamentals are still uncertain, as stated rather poignantly by Feynman {7} in this quote:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

As another fundamental example, Feynman {8} also pointed out that we really do not know what force is6 either! Quoting:

"One of the most important characteristics offorce is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. ... If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!"

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Solar Power

Solar Power

Start Saving On Your Electricity Bills Using The Power of the Sun And Other Natural Resources!

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment