"Electromagnetic waves" do NOT EXIST!!!

Demonstration: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section7-1_Electromagnetic_waves_do_not_exist.htm

NOTE:
The "waves equation" is a linear differential equation of second order and so only two solutions are possible: infinite planes with constant electric and magnetic fields in the entire plane! Not any other kind of solution is accepted.

...yea...martillo does not exist...this thread does not exist either, because its on another frequency of wavelength of existence, but since I am on this frequency that means everything else just doesnt exist. yo

People I advise you to not go to that site, as it contains great fallacies.

Orthodox intolerance? Not new in the history of Physics...

Another little detail that appears to be too small to rate a mention at that site, is that Maxwell actually came up with 20 equations. The "four equations" mentioned are the simplified versions of Maxwell's formalism that survived Heaviside and others "simplification".

If they're presuming to tell everyone there are "four equations" in Maxwell's EM theory, they got that bit wrong, because there are in fact 20 equations in the original formalism. Mind you, most people end up learning there are only 4, but it's really "EM lite", you might say.

The wave equation gives finite plane wave solutions if you specify boundary conditions. All EM waves have a source, so you'd always be able to fix a boundary condition even if you're solving the equations for an empty region of space.

Not at all.
The plane waves are the possible general solutions. If you add boundary conditions you are determining the source of them (which are impossible to exist).

Please review the real math involved.
The possible solutions are:
E = E(kx +/- vt)
B = B(kx +/- vt) without any boundary condition.

Please be honest with me and yourself!

Ok mister, for your info I have completed 3 courses in electromagnetism (including graduate level), on top of partial differential equations, numerical analysis, classical mechanics, quantum physics, optics, relativity, you name it. And even then I still don't consider myself an expert in electromagnetism. Regardless, there's no need to go lecturing to me about such basic concepts when it's clear that you're the one needing a refresher.

If you set up oscillating boundary conditions, i.e. supplied by the lab, you can have plane waves existing inside the boundary without carrying off to infinity. In your case, the plane wave solutions you're talking about are the result of sources located at infinity. They still have sources- classical EM waves don't just pop up in a vacuum without an original cause. Indeed it is your physical situation which is impossible, that being a source at infinity generating infinite plane waves. The infinite plane wave mechanism is nothing more than an idealized approximation which works very effectively for many problems in electromagnetism/optics.

Now it's your turn to learn something about math. Any superposition of plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations will itself be a solution. In fact, the general solution is an infinite sum of these plane waves, or more technically it can be expressed as a Fourier transform integrating over all wave numbers. There is nothing which says that such an infinite sum must itself be a plane wave- it could fall off to 0 at any distance you want even though each wave component carries off to infinity. Since all EM waves have an original source, you can always fix boundary conditions, which allow you to determine the superposition of plane waves which satisfies Maxwell's equations, and this superposition will not be an unphysical infinite plane wave. There, problem solved. Now be honest with yourself and go learn about Fourier transforms and wave superposition.

The possible solutions are:
E = E(kx +/- vt)
B = B(kx +/- vt) without any boundary condition.

Please be honest with me and yourself!

Yes, and as CptBork said, any superposition of possible solutions is another possible solution. In other words, for the electric field, for example, you can have different amplitudes, wavefront shapes, wave vectors and frequencies, all added together in any combination, and you'll still have a valid solution of the wave equation.

So, we get spherical waves, cylindrical waves, wave interference (as in single-slit diffraction or diffraction from a vertical aperture), holograms, etc. etc.

CptBork:

If you set up oscillating boundary conditions, i.e. supplied by the lab, you can have plane waves existing inside the boundary without carrying off to infinity. In your case, the plane wave solutions you're talking about are the result of sources located at infinity.
May be you can have this with water waves but I challenge to achieve them with electric and magnetic fields. Remember that the solutions imply constant electrci and magnetic fields in entire planes parallel to that planes!

The infinite plane wave mechanism is nothing more than an idealized approximation which works very effectively for many problems in electromagnetism/optics.

Maxwell's equations are not aproximations of nothing, they must be verified exactly or the fields are not what it is said they are and so the solutions must also be exactly that suggested by them. Some experiments don't match exactly due to practical conditions but I challenge again: give me a good aproximation of plane waves with electric and magnetic fields as described above, I mean as suggested by the Maxwell's equations.

Now it's your turn to learn something about math. Any superposition of plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations will itself be a solution. In fact, the general solution is an infinite sum of these plane waves, or more technically it can be expressed as a Fourier transform integrating over all wave numbers. There is nothing which says that such an infinite sum must itself be a plane wave- it could fall off to 0 at any distance you want even though each wave component carries off to infinity. Since all EM waves have an original source, you can always fix boundary conditions, which allow you to determine the superposition of plane waves which satisfies Maxwell's equations, and this superposition will not be an unphysical infinite plane wave. There, problem solved. Now be honest with yourself and go learn about Fourier transforms and wave superposition.
I don't know what Fourier's series have to do here since they are a transformation from a time-domain function to a frequency-domain function. I don't know how you will solve the problem with Fourier Transformations.
I think your idea is to sum an infinite number (a series) of the plane solutions to achieve some other solution (something more related to Taylor's series), may be more "practical" but sincerely I don't believe you will get a feasible solution. If you add many planes with constant values on it you will still have another plane with constant values on it. Even if you add infinite of them, provided convergence is achieved, you still will get an infinite plane with constant values in the entire plane and the problem will be the same!

I don't know what Fourier's series have to do here since they are a transformation from a time-domain function to a frequency-domain function.Um, when I learned about it, Fourier transforms (in the frequency domain) were always in the time domain (frequency being a function of time, and all).

CptBork:


May be you can have this with water waves but I challenge to achieve them with electric and magnetic fields. Remember that the solutions imply constant electrci and magnetic fields in entire planes parallel to that planes!

Wrong, the solutions are superpositions of plane waves, and such superpositions need not have the unphysical characteristics you specify. If you want to set up oscillating boundary conditions, you can do things like having capacitors on the boundary rapidly charge and discharge, or set up wires on the boundary carrying oscillating electric currents. If you can do it with water, you can do it with electromagnetism too. Don't ask me for specific details, that's for electrical engineers to worry about, I'm not an expert on this stuff. Naturally these conditions won't produce perfect finite plane waves, but they can come pretty close if you set it up right. It's irrelevant though- no physical solutions to Maxwell's equations produce infinite plane waves, only superpositions of such waves.

Maxwell's equations are not aproximations of nothing, they must be verified exactly or the fields are not what it is said they are and so the solutions must also be exactly that suggested by them. Some experiments don't match exactly due to practical conditions but I challenge again: give me a good aproximation of plane waves with electric and magnetic fields as described above, I mean as suggested by the Maxwell's equations.

Point sources of light such as the individual points of a flashlight bulb emit spherical waves, which at large distances become almost identical to plane waves. Approximating these waves as plane waves gives very accurate solutions to many problems in optics, such as Fraunhofer diffraction. If you think Maxwell's equations can be verified exactly, past the millionth decimal point, using real life lab experimentation, then you don't know squat about physics. All we can do is verify that the equations give the correct predictions to within the bounds of experimental error, and this has been verified thoroughly, aside from quantum and relativistic corrections when the experiments get precise enough.

I don't know what Fourier's series have to do here since they are a transformation from a time-domain function to a frequency-domain function. I don't know how you will solve the problem with Fourier Transformations. I think your idea is to sum an infinite number (a series) of the plane solutions to achieve some other solution (something more related to Taylor's series), may be more "practical" but sincerely I don't believe that adding the infinite parallel planes (allocating one by one in front of each other?) you will get a feasible solution.

Who cares what you believe? It's called a Fourier spatial transform, look it up. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about here, because I never said Fourier transforms had to be restricted to the time domain. I said you add up plane wave solutions for various different wave numbers, which means spatial frequencies, not time. I assumed that since you were seeking to disprove Maxwell's equations, while treating me like some kind of grade school jackass, you would have already been familiar with how to solve them. Evidently I was mistaken.

I have a feeling whatever I post here is going to be futile, because I can see from your website that you've spent a long portion of your life trying to prove Maxwell and co. wrong, and it'll take more than a 5 minute argument to get you to see the futility of your efforts. At least I tried to give you some serious and accurate information on this subject, so you're welcome.

P.S.

On top of all that, the plane wave solutions you speak of only apply when the entire universe is devoid of all charges and currents, except for some initial fields set up at the beginning. Realistic solutions produced by real, physical charges and currents come from methods such as Green's functions and retarded potentials, not plane wave superposition. So even if your argument was correct for an empty universe (and it's not), it still would have no bearing on the validity of Maxwell's equations.

Martillo posted here (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21828).

Notice how I'm the one who told him about the general functions f(x+vt) and g(x-vt) and here he is, repeating it here. But he hasn't understood it.
Maxwell's equations are not aproximations of nothing, they must be verified exactly or the fields are not what it is said they are and so the solutions must also be exactly that suggested by them. Some experiments don't match exactly due to practical conditions but I challenge again: give me a good aproximation of plane waves with electric and magnetic fields as described above, I mean as suggested by the Maxwell's equations.You can never verify anything with 100% accuracy.
I don't know what Fourier's series have to do here since they are a transformation from a time-domain function to a frequency-domain function. I don't know how you will solve the problem with Fourier Transformations.
I think your idea is to sum an infinite number (a series) of the plane solutions to achieve some other solution (something more related to Taylor's series), may be more "practical" but sincerely I don't believe you will get a feasible solution. If you add many planes with constant values on it you will still have another plane with constant values on it. Even if you add infinite of them, provided convergence is achieved, you still will get an infinite plane with constant values in the entire plane and the problem will be the same!No, seriously, learn what a Fourier decomposition is before making such nonsense comments. Obviously you know nothing about linear algebra, orthogonal bases and trigonometric functions. Considering that e^{i(kx-vt)} is a vital function to anyone studying electromagnetism and you don't know, that doesn't do you any favours when claiming to understand Maxwell's equations.

You do realise that quantum electrodynamics, which talks about photons, gives Maxwell's equation as an effective model? That large quantities of photons will behave macroscopicly inline with Maxwell's equations?

No, I imagine you don't realise that.

Cptbork:
“ Originally Posted by martillo
CptBork:


May be you can have this with water waves but I challenge to achieve them with electric and magnetic fields. Remember that the solutions imply constant electrci and magnetic fields in entire planes parallel to that planes! ”

Wrong, the solutions are superpositions of plane waves, and such superpositions need not have the unphysical characteristics you specify.
Of course they must specify such characteristics just because they are the possible solutions Maxwell's equations predict for them.

If you want to set up oscillating boundary conditions, you can do things like having capacitors on the boundary rapidly charge and discharge, or set up wires on the boundary carrying oscillating electric currents.
NO way, you won't have plane waves with these sources.

Don't ask me for specific details, that's for electrical engineers to worry about, I'm not an expert on this stuff.
Then don't state something you don't know anything about.

It's irrelevant though- no physical solutions to Maxwell's equations produce infinite plane waves, only superpositions of such waves.

Superpositions of such waves leaves to other infinite plane waves. If you add infinite planes of constant values you will also get infinite planes of constant values independently in the number of planes you consider. Even if an infinite series of planes you like to add (provided there is convergence) you will get again infinite plaqnes of constant values what means the same thing.

Point sources of light such as the individual points of a flashlight bulb emit spherical waves, which at large distances become almost identical to plane waves. Approximating these waves as plane waves gives very accurate solutions to many problems in optics, such as Fraunhofer diffraction. If you think Maxwell's equations can be verified exactly, past the millionth decimal point, using real life lab experimentation, then you don't know squat about physics. All we can do is verify that the equations give the correct predictions to within the bounds of experimental error, and this has been verified thoroughly, aside from quantum and relativistic corrections when the experiments get precise enough.

Maxwell's equation don't predict spherical waves but just plane waves.

I have a feeling whatever I post here is going to be futile, because I can see from your website that you've spent a long portion of your life trying to prove Maxwell and co. wrong, and it'll take more than a 5 minute argument to get you to see the futility of your efforts. At least I tried to give you some serious and accurate information on this subject, so you're welcome.

Wow, you really know how to disregard someone...
Really I lost the interest in discussing with you.
Good luck.

Notice how I'm the one who told him about the general functions f(x+vt) and g(x-vt) and here he is, repeating it here. But he hasn't understood it.

Such an absurdity taht I won't repeat anything here in this forum (it has been well answered in that forum).

No, seriously, learn what a Fourier decomposition is before making such nonsense comments. Obviously you know nothing about linear algebra, orthogonal bases and trigonometric functions.
I know about them pretty well, the problem is that you don't know anything about me and so how can you state such things?

You do realise that quantum electrodynamics, which talks about photons, gives Maxwell's equation as an effective model? That large quantities of photons will behave macroscopicly inline with Maxwell's equations?

No, I imagine you don't realise that.
Why not? I uphold the photon's approach for light and believe Maxwell's equations right so why I would not realise that?

The possible solutions are:
E = E(kx +/- vt)
B = B(kx +/- vt) without any boundary condition.
These are only perfectly accurate solutions to Maxwell's equations in empty space - ie. assuming no charges or electric currents exist in the region of space considered.

Cptbork: "Wrong, the solutions are superpositions of plane waves, and such superpositions need not have the unphysical characteristics you specify."

Martillo: "Of course they must specify such characteristics just because they are the possible solutions Maxwell's equations predict for them."

You just don't get it. Each plane wave on its own has unphysical characteristics. Summing these plane waves gives solutions which have perfectly reasonable physical characteristics. There is nothing which says that \iiint A(\vec{k})e^{i(\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}-\omega t})d^3\vec{k}\ need itself be a plane wave. I told you to go look up Fourier spatial transforms and you ignored me. Now go do it so you'll stop looking like such a buffoon.


NO way, you won't have plane waves with these sources.

Seeing as you don't even know how to solve Maxwell's equations properly, I don't think you're qualified to comment on that. And I never said you get plane waves, just approximations.


Then don't state something you don't know anything about.

Don't go there, or you'll dig yourself an even bigger hole than you've already managed. It's quite apparent from what you've said so far, that you know even less about this stuff than I do. Which is sad really, considering from your website it appears that you're the one who supposedly puts food on his table as an electrical engineer.


Superpositions of such waves leaves to other infinite plane waves. If you add infinite planes of constant values you will also get infinite planes of constant values independently in the number of planes you consider. Even if an infinite series of planes you like to add (provided there is convergence) you will get again infinite plaqnes of constant values what means the same thing.

This just shows how little you understand about Fourier spatial transforms and plane wave superposition. Go look it up; better yet, go buy a proper textbook in electromagnetism or at least a book on partial differential equations so you can learn this stuff and stop speaking out of total ignorance.

Maxwell's equation don't predict spherical waves but just plane waves.

Switch to spherical coordinates, and you get spherical waves. Go to cylindrical coordinates, and you get cylindrical waves. Any solution to Maxwell's equations in vacuum can be expressed using a basis set made up of plane waves, cylindrical waves or spherical waves- it's all equivalent. You can build plane waves out of infinite superpositions of spherical or cylindrical waves, and vice versa. Not that I expect you to understand any of this, as clearly you've never bothered to learn it.


Wow, you really know how to disregard someone...
Really I lost the interest in discussing with you.
Good luck.

Well you had it coming. You made a point, I made a counterpoint, and next thing you're telling me I don't understand the basic maths and need to go back to school. It's unfortunate if I pissed you off, but from your website you seem to have a pretty huge ego so it's kind of inevitable. Hopefully you'll actually decide one day to go research this stuff properly and then you'll learn just how much it is you don't understand at present. You'll be saving yourself a lot of trouble down the road in the future if you take my advice, but that's up to you. Good luck regardless.

http://danavenell.com/ODDBALLSAYSsilkscreen.jpg

Argue with this raygun babe, Martillo!

http://thestijlfille.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/barbarella-poster.jpg

He, he, he...

Cptbork:

Just one final comment because is too hard to "talk" with you:
I think you re making the same mistake as alphanumeric in other forum. You are considering the general equation for waves which admit more general solutions. The problem with the "electromagnetic waves" solutions is that they start from 4 (four) equation for the fields (Maxwell's equations) and so they have more constraints and that's why only plane waves solutions are possible for the electric and magnetic fields.
This is well adressed at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_waves
You will find near the end of the page: "But these are only two equations and we started with four, so there is still more information pertaining to these waves hidden within Maxwell's equations..."

You must study deeper the derivation of the "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell's equations to see that only plane waves are predicted and may be you would need the intuition of an electric engineer to "get" that there is no possible source that could generate such kind of solutions for the electric and magnetic fields what seems to go beyond your expertisse...

You are considering the general equation for waves which admit more general solutions. The problem with the "electromagnetic waves" solutions is that they start from 4 (four) equation for the fields (Maxwell's equations) and so they have more constraints...
These extra constraints only apply to the orientation and relationship between the Electric and Magnetic fields - which the Wikipedia article you linked to then goes on to cover. For example:

\left{ \vec{E} = E_{0} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{z}} \\
\vec{B} = B_{0} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{z}} \right.

is a "plane wave" solution to the two wave equations for \vec{E} and \vec{B}, but it's not a solution to Maxwell's equations in a vacuum (since, for example, \vec{\bigtriangledown} \cdot \vec{E} = - E_{0} k \sin( k x - \omega t ), while it should be zero).

This, however:

\left{ \vec{E} = E_{0} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{x}} \\
\vec{B} = \frac{E_{0}}{c} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{y}} \right.

is a solution to Maxwell's equations. It's a similar story for cylindrical and spherical waves.

martillo:

What kind of waves (if any) does a point source of light (such as an ordinary light bulb viewed from 100 metres, say) emit, according to you?

Plane waves?

przyk:
These extra constraints only apply to the orientation and relationship between the Electric and Magnetic fields
Not only that. The general wave equation admit "wave solutions" in the three coordinates at the same time while the "electromagnetic waves solution" admit only palne waves where the fields are constant over the entire plane and parallel to that plane. This is much more constrained than the solutions of just the general equation for any wave.

James R:
What kind of waves (if any) does a point source of light (such as an ordinary light bulb viewed from 100 metres, say) emit, according to you?

Plane waves?
No wave at all! Light is made by photons with no "wave" associated to it. I defend the "particle" approach for light and that there is a "wave-like" behavior for light. You can see at my site how, with the right structure for the photons, all those "wave-like" behaviors can be perfectly explained: interference, diffraction refraction, signal transmission by photons (radio, tv, etc) and also much more: quantization of energies in atoms, photoelectric emission and absorption, electron/positron pair annihilation and creation, difraction of electrons, structure for protons, neutrons and the atom, the spin, subatomic particles, etc, etc...

You should take a look at my site: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

A new Physics could rise...

or maybe we can just explain everything with aether...lolz

James R:

No wave at all! Light is made by photons with no "wave" associated to it. I defend the "particle" approach for light and that there is a "wave-like" behavior for light. You can see at my site how, with the right structure for the photons, all those "wave-like" behaviors can be perfectly explained:

All of those things can already be adequately explained by current models, and they work really well. 'Wave' is a mathematical description of the observed behaviour, nothing more. Seems you think you can actually pigeon hole light, and define what it actually is. There is no value in that, really, we only need to observe, model, and predict behaviours.

It's not like labelling light as being purely a 'photon' helps understand it any better anyway, it's still rather an abstract concept.

Not only that. The general wave equation admit "wave solutions" in the three coordinates at the same time while the "electromagnetic waves solution" admit only palne waves where the fields are constant over the entire plane and parallel to that plane. This is much more constrained than the solutions of just the general equation for any wave.
I really don't know where you're getting this idea that Maxwell's equations in a vacuum only allow plane wave solutions. What is true, as others have explained here, is that every solution can be expressed as a superposition of plane waves (all propagating at c), but generally a superposition of plane waves isn't itself a plane wave. A case in point is the type of solution to the wave equation I think you had in mind:

E = \cos( k_x x - \omega t ) \cos( k_y y )

is a solution to the wave equation (provided \frac{\omega^2}{c^2} = {k_x}^2 + {k_y}^2) and it's not a plane wave. But it's an interference pattern generated by the sum of two plane waves propagating at c, since:

\cos( k_x x - \omega t ) \cos ( k_y y ) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \cos( k_x x + k_y y - \omega t ) + \cos( k_x x - k_y y - \omega t ) \right]

so it's very definitely a solution to Maxwell's equations.

przyk:
but generally a superposition of plane waves isn't itself a plane wave.
I disagree with this. The plane waves means planes of constant electric and magnetic fields over the entire plane which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation and for each "x" you have tath kind of plane. Now if you sum two "constant planes" you still will have a constant plane what means that adding "plane waves" you will only obtain other "plane wave".

Now, the problem you present is about interference and here I'm not sure how it is related to Maxwell's equations.
I'm not sure but I think the equations you present don't satisfy Maxwell's equations but I'm not totally sure and I would need to do the math what would be good but I don't know how much time it would take to me and if I would have that time since I have much work nowadays.
You use equations with "x" and "y" and this is not a normal formulation of a plane wave derived from Maxwell's equations since I have only seen solutions in one coordinate being independent of the other coordinates. This perfectly shows they are made by constant planes and why the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations are called "plane waves".

Now, the problem you present is about interference and here I'm not sure how it is related to Maxwell's equations.
I'm not sure but I think the equations you present don't satisfy Maxwell's equations but I'm not totally sure and I would need to do the math what would be good but I don't know how much time it would take to me and if I would have that time since I have much work nowadays.

It should take you less than a minute, unless you've never done this stuff in your entire life. I did it in my head in ten seconds. That's a tiny fraction of the time you've spent just posting here, let alone working on your website. Then you can come explain to everybody why the calculation worked while everything you've said so far contradicts it.

The plane waves means planes of constant electric and magnetic fields over the entire plane which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation and for each "x" you have tath kind of plane. Now if you sum two "constant planes" you still will have a constant plane what means that adding "plane waves" you will only obtain other "plane wave".
This argument only holds if you sum two waves propagating in the same direction. \cos(x) + \cos(y) isn't a plane wave, for example. Also, even if you add two sinusoidal waves propagating in the same direction, they'll only give a sinusoidal wave if their wavenumbers are the same.
I'm not sure but I think the equations you present don't satisfy Maxwell's equations but I'm not totally sure and I would need to do the math what would be good but I don't know how much time it would take to me and if I would have that time since I have much work nowadays.
Well you'd need to turn E into a vector and find its associated magnetic field first. A full solution (if I haven't made any errors) is:

\left{ \vec{E} \: = \: \cos(k_x x - \omega t) \, \cos(k_y y) \, \vec{1_z} \\ \vec{B} \: = \: \frac{k_y}{\omega} \, \sin(k_x x - \omega t) \, \sin(k_y y) \, \vec{1_x} \: - \: \frac{k_x}{\omega} \, \cos(k_x x - \omega t) \, \cos(k_y y) \, \vec{1_y} \right.

for {k_x}^2 + {k_y}^2 = \frac{\omega^2}{c^2}.

You can plug this into Maxwell's equations and see if it works out.
You use equations with "x" and "y" and this is not a normal formulation of a plane wave derived from Maxwell's equations since I have only seen solutions in one coordinate being independent of the other coordinates. This perfectly shows they are made by constant planes and why the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations are called "plane waves".
The general form of a plane (real) wave is:

A \, \cos( \vec{k} \cdot \vec{r} - \omega t - \varphi )

It's direction of propagation is the vector \vec{k}. The expression \vec{k} \cdot \vec{r} \equiv k_x x + k_y y + k_z z is constant in the plane perpendicular to \vec{k}.

przyk:

I have reviewed some things and I found you are right that not only plane waves are the possible solutions nevertheless the same claim stands for any solution:
There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations.

The question for you now is if your proposed solution of an "electromagnetic wave" could have a possible source of electric and magnetic field that can generate it.

My claim is based on the assumption that the "electromagnetic waves" were plane waves and it is easy to "see" that there is no possible source for them. Now I should have to work further to determine that the same claim is valid for all the possible solutions...

Przyk, I must thank you for your posts. You made me realize in the past that my argument against Relativity Theory about the invariance of the De Broglie relation wasn't really valid and I took it out. I don't forget that.
For me your posts have a high value and I think you really help to find what is really right and what is not.
I f there were more people like you in the forums I (or we...) could have developed a much more perfect manuscript. Unfortunatelly there aren't. I needed honest criticism with rational treatment with "open mind" in the sense that may be at least I could be partially right in my claims and propositions taking what is right and discarding what is wrong.
As I say in the main page I'm not infallible, I make mistakes (may be everyday) and my manuscript should be taken as a "guide" for a new theory in Physics. I believe I could be wrong in some things but also that I'm right in many things.
I also say that my "work" should be analyzed by more expert minds, that I think is ready to be analyzed scientifically.
I post in forums with the aim to find that kind of people but you know, is very hard to find.

I would apreciate any other kind of comment on my manuscript you could find appropiated.

Thanks a lot.

You know, I would like you could find something good in my manuscript that could inspire you to make somethhing really great in Physics. You deserve that.

You complain about your treatment here. Read back to the previous page, I was perfectly happy to have a reasonable discussion about this and to work with you to help correct your misunderstandings, or to see how indeed you might be correct. Your reply was to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about and needed to learn the basic maths, and that I was being dishonest with the community by lying about my knowledge level. Now guess who it is who finally admits he didn't understand the basic maths (you, of course), and still expects an apology from the rest of us. Good luck with that one.

CptBork:
Your reply was to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about and needed to learn the basic maths, and that I was being dishonest with the community by lying about my knowledge level.
No CptBork, I didn't say that. I said you shoukld be honest with me and yourself and that you don't have the intuition of an electric engineer to relize that there are no possible source for the "electromagnetic" plane waves (you talked about labs water waves).
You should also review your posts to see you weren't any friendly or cordial.
But the main point is that you didn't make me realise in what point I was wrong as przyk did.

Anyway the same claim stands for you too: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

If I'm wrong just show me with rational argumentation and please, with cordiality.

CptBork:

No CptBork, I didn't say that. I said you shoukld be honest with me and yourself and that you don't have the intuition of an electric engineer to relize that there are no possible source for the "electromagnetic" plane waves (you talked about labs water waves).

And what makes you think my knowledge of electromagnetism only extends to pen and paper calculations? I've worked with circuits, diodes, flip-flops, capacitors, inductors, Fourier optics, etc. I said there are ways of generating finite plane waves, or very good approximations of them, inside a bounded region such as a waveguide (although I didn't specifically mention waveguide by name). I never said anything about water waves, you're the one who brought that up to begin with.

Never did I say infinite plane waves exist, and you don't need a nanosecond of engineering experience or intuition to understand that. I merely said infinite plane waves aren't the only wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, and you got all touchy about that. Well now you understand that indeed Maxwell's equations can give rise to perfectly physical, realistic wave solutions, just like waves in water or on a string, no photons required. You also now understand that the extra conditions \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}=0 and \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{B}=0 only put constraints on the directions that these waves can vibrate, but do not restrict arbitrary shapes for the wavefronts.


You should also review your posts to see you weren't any friendly or cordial.
But the main point is that you didn't make me realise in what point I was wrong as przyk did.

Well I found your initial reply to be rude, insulting and presumptious, but maybe I overreacted. I'm sorry if that's the case, but przyk cleared this up for you so it's done now.

Martillo, do you even know any vector calculus? Do you know any electromagnetism?

Here's some really easy vector calculus questions : question 2 (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/B10b.pdf)

Go on, do question 2 here for us all to see. Now I wouldn't ask someone like CptBork to do that to prove his claims about being competant at such things because he's level headed, able to understand the basic mathematical discussion put forth in this thread and has discussed verified science in other threads. Despite having known you for much much longer, I cannot say that any of those things are true about you.

That question is so simple, it's bordering on insulting to anyone who knows anything about vector calculus and electromagnetism. Please show you know at least the very basic concepts in mainstream electromagnetism.

I'll leave the questions on deriving Maxwell's equations from a U(1) G bundle till later....

Hehe, couldn't help myself, I had to do question 2 just for kicks. But I won't bother posting it yet so we have a chance to see Martillo's expertise in the field. Do you consider it cheating if I convert the spherical and cylindrical vectors to Cartesian before doing the calculations? Would be kind of annoying having to derive or look up the cylindrical and spherical expressions for curl.

CptBork:
I've worked with circuits, diodes, flip-flops, capacitors, inductors, Fourier optics, etc. I said there are ways of generating finite plane waves, or very good approximations of them, inside a bounded region such as a waveguide (although I didn't specifically mention waveguide by name).
The problem is that I sustain that what is really produced by antennas are photons and not waves. Please see Section 7.2: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section7-2_Hertz_experiments.htm and Section 7.3: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section7-3_Communicating_with_photons.htm.

The same phenomenon can be then explained just with photons!

Now, I disagree with the current accepted concept of the "wave-particle duality" becuase as I say: Is like to try to describe an animal stating that it sometimes behave as a fly and sometimes as a shark. This actually is not a good description of an animal and just hides that we are really not understanding what is going on.
Then I'm sustaining now that actually the "electromagnetic waves" do not exist and so I challenge you with the main claim which is the subject of this thread: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

So the problem is for the solutions you and anyone could determine to Maxwell's equations to find really possible theoretical sources for the electric and magnetic fields that must generate them.

I have chllenged przyk with this and now I'm challenging you, alphanumeric and any other one interested.

I know that for the infinite plane electromagnetic wave solution this is impossible. I know now that I should work further to demonstate that the same applies for those other possible solutions...

The same phenomenon can be then explained just with photons!QED already does that. Electromagnetism is an effective theory, in that it only deals with large numbers of photons over large distances (compared to quantum systems) and so you take the appropriate approximations to QED, which is the actual model.

And guess what, the effective model of QED is Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Anyone who has actually studied photons, which I'm certain you haven't done, should be aware of this.

And your model of photons is non-existent.

If you claim otherwise, give me the differential cross section of e^{-}+e^{+} \to \mu^{-}+\mu^{+} under a single photon exchange.

If you know anything about photons then I shouldn't have to explain the meaning of the terms in that request.
I have chllenged przyk with this and now I'm challenging you, alphanumeric and any other one interested.So you're challenging us while ignoring my challenge? How hypocritical. The question I linked to in my previous post takes less than 5 minutes to answer. Why did you ignore it?

Could it be you cannot do it?

Come on, show you can do even the simplest vector calculus. Or can't you?

alphanumeric:
So you're challenging us while ignoring my challenge? How hypocritical. The question I linked to in my previous post takes less than 5 minutes to answer. Why did you ignore it?

Could it be you cannot do it?

Come on, show you can do even the simplest vector calculus. Or can't you?
First of all I think that your "quetion 2" has nothing to do with my claim and really I don't have much time to stay in the forums as I would like to to spend it with unproductive subjects.

Second, You should review your posting to see that you are, how to say, too agressive and this always leave to very bad discussions. I know that because I have already discussed with you other times and because I have the experience to have discussed with others that behave like you and rarely those discussions could leave to a productive conclusion.

Do you know the meaning of cordiality? I think is a basic premise that should be mantained in all forums. We could agree or disagree with others but the discussions should be mantained cordial.

First of all I think that your "quetion 2" has nothing to do with my claim You claim to be competant at electromagnetism. I don't believe you.
nd really I don't have much time to stay in the forums as I would like to to spend it with unproductive subjects. It took you more time to write your last post than it did for me to solve those questions.
Second, You should review your posting to see that you are, how to say, too agressive and this always leave to very bad discussions. I know that because I have already discussed with you other times and because I have the experience to have discussed with others that behave like you and rarely those discussions could leave to a productive conclusion. Yes, you and I have met before. And once you made it obvious you don't know any mainstream physics or maths and you have no intention of learning any, despite making wild claims about such things, I stop sugar coating my responses. It's generally easy to tell the difference between crank newcomers and sane new comers. Within seeing about 3 of CptBork's posts, I could tell he was sane and knowledgable. Hence why I didn't jump down his throat when he said "I've studied string theory". I see from his posts he's knowledgable in the right things for that to be entirely possible and since he doesn't seem to stretch the truth, I believe him.

You've made claims about the standard model, electromagnetism and a variety of simpler mathematical and physical concepts and none of those times have you shown you're competant at them. Just now on PhysOrg you claimed that solutions to the wave equation are spanned by a 2 dimensional basis because it's second order.

And yet y(x,t) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sin\left( \frac{n \pi x}{L} \right) \left( A_{n}\sin\left( \frac{n \pi c t}{L} \right) + B_{n}\cos\left( \frac{n \pi c t}{L} \right) is a solution to the wave equation over the infinite dimensional orthogonal basis \sin(k n x) and \cos(k n x). As I said to you in either this thread or the one on PhysOrg, degree n equations need n independent boundary conditions to uniquely specify a solution. A general solution over functions will be spanned by infinitely many basis vectors.

If you don't want people to instantly think you're fulll of BS, show some level of competancy at the topics you discuss. Then I'll be cordial, just like I'm polite to people like Ben and QuarkHead. Until you earn my respect, I don't give it. Infact, you're earnt my scorn by your nonsense claims.

Ok, then I'm wrong in that statement but stilll my main claim remains: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

I know, even with my poor knowlledge in electromagnetism that this is valid for the more known "electromagnetic plane waves" solutions of Maxwell's equations.
I just believe now that it will be valid for all the other possible solutions and this is the challenge now, to demonstrate if this is right or wrong, true or false...

Ok, here's what you do, and I'm not going to write out the full details because these equations are fairly long. You start with Maxwell's equations with sources, i.e. \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}=\rho/\eps_0, etc. There are a few ways to approach solving this problem, but the most popular one is to use the method of potentials, typically in the Lorenz Gauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_gauge) (see link). You set \vec{B}=\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A} and \vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla}V-\frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}, plug in the Lorenz gauge condition and then you get a classical wave equation with sources for the potentials V and A.

You then solve these equations with time-dependent retarded time Green's functions plus (if I recall correctly) an undetermined homogeneous solution which is fixed by the boundary conditions, which I believe we can neglect due to the \vec{E} and \vec{B} fields vanishing at infinity. Usually it's easiest to simplify the potentials for your specific situation, then to calculate \vec{E} and \vec{B} afterwards. However, you can go straight to the finish and get a general solution called Jefimenko's equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations) (see link).

You can see directly from those equations (make sure you read the bit about retarded times), that any changes in your sources and currents produce ripples in the electric and magnetic fields which travel at the speed of light. Then if you apply the equations to systems like a loop of oscillating current, some of the energy in the fields carries off to infinity and is interpreted as radiation. Mathematically, you can take such solutions and write them in terms of the sums of plane waves, spherical waves, cylindrical waves etc., and then you can physically do all sorts of filtering and shaping on those waves to get various other kinds of shapes in real lab conditions. I'm not really interested in going into details with this, but the point is it's clear from Jefimenko's general solution to Maxwell's equations with sources, that it's physically viable and indeed inevitable that EM waves are produced by any non-static charges and currents.

Maxwell's equations imply that the fields obey the wave equation. This is clear by just plugging them into one another.

In any field system where communication is not instantaneous, it's a physical inevitability that waves occur because they represent the forefront of changes in the field propogating. Hence why Newtonian gravity doesn't have gravity waves but relativity does.

Hence movements in the sources of electric fields, ie charges, will cause a propogation of electric field variations. Changing electric fields generate changing magnetic fields and vice versa. This propogation of mutually generating perturbations of the electric and magnetic fields is called 'light'.

Martillo, all of this, and a great deal more, can be justified via such methods as CptBork outlines. Undoubtedly you are not familiar with the methods Cpt talks about, you don't even basic principles of differential equations, never mind the specifics of electromagnetism.

Each time you've made a basic claim about electromagnetism or differential equations you turn out to be wrong. And yet you never stop to think "Maybe I should stop making claims about topics I don't know about?". Yet again, you ignored my challenge. Do you not have 3 minutes to spare to prove you know the simplest thing about vector calculus?

I imagine you have plenty of time, you just don't spend it learning.

I wasn't wrong!
A linear differential equation of nth order can have n linearly independent solutions and the general solution can be expressed as a linear combination of them.
See at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_differential_equation
or for example: http://www.efunda.com/math/ode/linearode_terms.cfm

So what now???

Alphanumeric didn't solve the claim, just posted some srguments about fields' propagation so you did nothing.
CptBork at least presented a way to find possible sources for the fields. At a first look my theory disagree with the concept of retarded potentials since it is based in the classical approach and the fields are instantaneous independent of the distance but I will analize if his solutions don't have some fail (if I could find it...). One first problem I see is that now we are not talking about Maxwell's equations anymore but about Jefimenko's equations...

I wasn't wrong!
A linear differential equation of nth order can have n linearly independent solutions and the general solution can be expressed as a linear combination of them.
See at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_differential_equation
or for example: http://www.efunda.com/math/ode/linearode_terms.cfm

So what now???
The unique problem is that the mentioned equations involves only the variable "Y" what implies in our case one coordinate.
In a three-dimensional space we must consider three coordinates to solve our general problem. I'm thinking now that this could be accomplished easily if the general solution could be "decoupled" in the coordinates getting one linear differential equation for each coordinate alone, separatedly.
This will imply we would have in total a sixth degree of freedom in the solutions...
I'm not sure but I think that here I'm getting something interesting...

I wasn't wrong!
A linear differential equation of nth order can have n linearly independent solutions and the general solution can be expressed as a linear combination of them.
See at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_...ntial_equation
or for example: http://www.efunda.com/math/ode/linearode_terms.cfm

So what now???For those who don't read PhysOrg, I pointed him at Fourier series and how group and wave velocities can be different and this leads to infinitely many solutions to the wave equation of independent pure modes.

Despite Martillo claiming to be very familiar with Fourier series, he has now just suddenly realised there's more to his analysis (yes Martillo, it's spelt with a 'y') than just single velocity systems.
Alphanumeric didn't solve the claim, just posted some srguments about fields' propagation so you did nothing.Because Cpt had already said plenty and I've mentioned sources to you before when I mentioned dF = d*J in terms of differential forms. Though I doubt you understood.
At a first look my theory disagree with the concept of retarded potentials since it is based in the classical approach and the fields are instantaneous independent of the distance but I will analize if his solutions don't have some fail (if I could find it...). One first problem I see is that now we are not talking about Maxwell's equations anymore but about Jefimenko's equations...Never mind the fact that electromagnetism has been used for more than a century to accurately describe effective field theory in electromagnetic fields and is put into literally thousands of different bits of technology you have dotted around your home and (I hope) work.
The unique problem is that the mentioned equations involves only the variable "Y" what implies in our case one coordinate.
In a three-dimensional space we must consider three coordinates to solve our general problem. I'm thinking now that this could be accomplished easily if the general solution could be "decoupled" in the coordinates getting one linear differential equation for each coordinate alone, separatedly.Given your lack of knowledge of vector calculus, I doubt you'll manage that, since what you're talking about involves precisely the methods you'd need to use to solve the question I linked you to a few posts ago. If you couldn't immediately see it's an easy question, you don't have the knowledge of vector calculus to do what you talk about doing.

Feel free to prove me wrong and answer the question I asked you.
This will imply we would have in total a sixth degree of freedom in the solutions...What about electrodynamics, the including of special relativity to the classical field theory model? There's plenty of complication in that.
I'm not sure but I think that here I'm getting something interesting...Laughed at?

Alphanumeric didn't solve the claim, just posted some srguments about fields' propagation so you did nothing.
CptBork at least presented a way to find possible sources for the fields. At a first look my theory disagree with the concept of retarded potentials since it is based in the classical approach and the fields are instantaneous independent of the distance but I will analize if his solutions don't have some fail (if I could find it...). One first problem I see is that now we are not talking about Maxwell's equations anymore but about Jefimenko's equations...

It's not a problem at all. Jefimenko's equations can be derived from Maxwell's equations by following the steps I outlined. Indeed, Maxwell's equations can be derived from Jefimenko's equations, as long as you include the assumption of charge conservation, \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{J}=0. Just a note for you though, Jefimenko's equations are very rarely the actual method used to solve these problems- usually you derive the retarded potentials and simplify them first before calculating the fields, based on the specific physical system. Jefimenko's equations are what you get if you carry the calculation through all the way without simplifying.

I was working out a simplified example for you of how a charging/discharging capacitor can be used to produce a nice approximate wavefront for you, and trying to assume enough simplifying factors to make it a 1-dimensional calculation, but I came upon a rather difficult Fourier transform which I believe can only be evaluated by truncation approximations, which defeats the whole purpose. The point is that if you whip out a text like Jackson's "Electrodynamics" or something even more advanced, you can read about the detailed (and very messy) calculations which give rise to various kinds of wavefronts. The problem is you need to know a lot of math to understand this stuff, concepts like generating functions etc. Seeing your misunderstanding above comparing ordinary differential equations to partial differential equations, I think you're not yet at this level, though you can learn it if you dedicate yourself to doing so.

The unique problem is that the mentioned equations involves only the variable "Y" what implies in our case one coordinate.
In a three-dimensional space we must consider three coordinates to solve our general problem. I'm thinking now that this could be accomplished easily if the general solution could be "decoupled" in the coordinates getting one linear differential equation for each coordinate alone, separatedly.
This will imply we would have in total a sixth degree of freedom in the solutions...
I'm not sure but I think that here I'm getting something interesting...

You can take an nth order differential equation in 1 variable and break it down into n coupled 1st order equations, or vice versa, but you can't do that with a partial differential equation. The methods used are very different, you should seriously learn this stuff in detail because it's really good to know. Then you don't have to take people's words for granted on many of these issues.

CptBork:
I was working out a simplified example for you of how a charging/discharging capacitor can be used to produce a nice approximate wavefront
Don't forget that inthe plane electromagnetic waves the electric field is parallel to the plane and this cannot be achieved by a capacitor.

It's not a problem at all. Jefimenko's equations can be derived from Maxwell's equations by following the steps I outlined. Indeed, Maxwell's equations can be derived from Jefimenko's equations, as long as you include the assumption of charge conservation...
You know, I never heard about "Jefimenko" before even looking a lot about "electromagnetic waves". I always heard that they were predicted by Maxwell's equations and not Jefimenko's ones. I agree that to agree with Relativity Theory which seem to state that the electric and magnetic fields travel at velocity C Jefimenko should be considered but it isn't...
Now as you say they seem quite equivalent and may be if the "electromagnetic waves exist for one of them they will also exist for the other. So I will stay with Maxwell's equations and prediction and refute the "electromagnetic waves" existence. I will do it in a next post.

CptBork:

Don't forget that inthe plane electromagnetic waves the electric field is parallel to the plane and this cannot be achieved by a capacitor.

My plan was to calculate a wave propagating transverse to the distance between the capacitors, i.e. being radiated out the sides, not between the plates. I could see from the nature of the integrals I got that indeed I get a very interesting wave shape propagating at c, but the integral is too messy and there are lots of simplifications and assumptions involved in treating it as a 1-dimensional wave which aren't worthwhile considering the result is still a mess. There's limits to what you can do by solving Maxwell's equations in vacuum. If you only use the vacuum equations, you have to restrict them to applying only in regions with no charges and currents, meaning any charges and currents can only have an effect on the boundary values which you use to specify your solutions.

You know, I never heard about "Jefimenko" before even looking a lot about "electromagnetic waves". I always heard that they were predicted by Maxwell's equations and not Jefimenko's ones. I agree that to agree with Relativity Theory which seem to state that the electric and magnetic fields travel at velocity C Jefimenko should be considered but it isn't...
Now as you say they seem quite equivalent and may be if the "electromagnetic waves exist for one of them they will also exist for the other. So I will stay with Maxwell's equations and prediction and refute the "electromagnetic waves" existence. I will do it in a next post.

What I'm saying is that Maxwell's and Jefimenko's equations are two forms of the exact same thing. You can derive Jefimenko's equations as the general solutions to Maxwell's equations, and you can derive Maxwell's equations from the Jefimenko equations. Jefimenko is a better place to start from when possible, because that's how you can directly calculate the fields from your charges and currents. Maxwell's equations themselves only describe the equations governing these fields, not the actual solutions. Jefimenko's equations are the actual solutions themselves.

Well, here is the final demonstration of my claim:

First I will consider that, as I wrote, there is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the plane "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations. It is obvious for the plane waves.
Second I will consider that in the three dimensional Space the plane waves can travel in any direction and that the general solution for the waves equation can be expressed as a linear combination (superposition) of a finite or infinite number of plane waves.
Third I will state that if for any plane wave there is no possible source for both the electric and magnetic field to generate it then any wave obtained by a linear combination of plane always also don't have a possible source of electric and magnetic fileds that could generate it.
Then it can be concluded my claim: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."
Finally it can be then stated that the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations cannot exist.

Done.

Oh and a word of caution: the fields in Jefimenko's equations are not instantaneous. If you look carefully, the whole point of using the retarded time t_r is to show that any changes in charges and currents in one place leads to changes propagating at c in the fields located elsewhere. As for where t_r comes from, it's derived directly from solving Maxwell's equations, no physical assumptions required. There is an accompanying advanced time solution as well, but it's ruled out because changes in the future don't cause changes in the past.

Third I will state that if for any plane wave there is no possible source for both the electric and magnetic field to generate it then any wave obtained by a linear combination of plane always also don't have a possible source of electric and magnetic fileds that could generate it.

You don't need to be able to generate every plane wave in order to generate a superposition of such plane waves. Think of water waves like you originally mentioned- you can generate a finite bump spreading out as ripple waves, that's easy to do. Yet the result can be decomposed into an infinite superposition of unphysical 1-dimensional infinite plane waves, none of which are possible for us to generate on their own.

Well, here is the final demonstration of my claim:

First I will consider that, as I wrote, there is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the plane "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations. It is obvious for the plane waves.
Second I will consider that in the three dimensional Space the plane waves can travel in any direction and that the general solution for the waves equation can be expressed as a linear combination (superposition) of a finite or infinite number of plane waves.
Third I will state that if for any plane wave there is no possible source for both the electric and magnetic field to generate it then any wave obtained by a linear combination of plane always also don't have a possible source of electric and magnetic fileds that could generate it.
Then it can be concluded my claim: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."
Finally it can be then stated that the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations cannot exist.

Done.Funny, you call my wordy post arm waving and don't accept what it says but when you make a claim a wordy demonstration of your claim is enough to satisfy yourself. Nice hypocrisy.

You keep saying things like "...which doesn't exist". Can you prove that mathematically? There's plenty of mathematics to do with the proof of the (non)existence of particular things, like solutions to given integrals or PDEs in terms of elementary functions. That's how we know there's no nice way of expressing the Erf function. Or there's no general expression for the roots of 10th order polynomials.

You claim to demolish a HUGE area of physics but you cannot demonstrate your claim in a precise way. You just waffle and assume your assumptions about the nature of differential equations are right. Already that's been shown to be wrong. You don't know much about ODEs and you assume the same results for ODEs carry over to PDEs. They don't in general. Hence your mistake about solutions to differential equations. The wave equation and Maxwell's equations are PDEs. They don't trivially factorise into a series of non-coupled ODEs. If they did, the life of a physicist would be much easier.

Interesting that someone can construct a theory that denies the existence of things they are using at the time to construct their theory.

I guess there must be nothing like it...

Vkothii:
Interesting that someone can construct a theory that denies the existence of things they are using at the time to construct their theory.
I'm not denying, the new theory states that actually signal transmission is carried by photons: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section7-3_Communicating_with_photons.htm

I'm not denying, the new theory states that actually signal transmission is carried by photonsAnd where does mainstream physics actually deny that? Nowhere. Mainstream physics says that light is a huge collection of photons. Maxwell's equations are an effective field theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_field_theory) to QED. It 'smooths over the quanta'. Just as we know gravity is a quantised force and GR is an approximation, when you deal with distances long enough to 'smooth over the quanta'.

Take fluid mechanics. The Navier-Stokes equation assumes water or air or any fluid is a continuous medium, which we know is false. So why do people designing cars, boats and planes use it? Because it's a valid approximation over large distances. Once you consider scales which are only a few orders of magnitude over inter-molecular scales so things like Van der Valls forces are important, you cannot use the effective theory.

Someone building a TV antenna doesn't need to know about photons because the antenna needs only large distance considerations. Someone building a quantum computer needs to know about photons because the light pulses involved as over such small distances.

You don't even understand this concept in physics, never mind the specifics of it in terms of approximations QED with electromagnetism. But what would I know, it's not like I use super gravity effective field theory to give approximate description of string vacua in M theory.

Oh wait. I DO.

Just as we know gravity is a quantised force and GR is an approximation, when you deal with distances long enough to 'smooth over the quanta'.

But what would I know, it's not like I use super gravity effective field theory to give approximate description of string vacua in M theory.
So, you are believing in such things.
My Blatt's book in Physics not even mention those kind of things...

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

My Blatt's book in Physics not even mention those kind of things...So you're attempting to use a 1st year book to prove that 3rd year topics are worthless.

I bet your book doesn't cover quantum field theory either but it's very much mainstream physics. GR is a 3rd or 4th year course and at best would only get a passing mention in a 1st year book as something which is superior to Newtonian physics. Look at any university physics website and you'll see they include GR. So your logic, as usual, is terrible.

Are you that stupid? Again, what would I know about physics. Not like I teach this stuff to undergraduates or anything. Oh wait, I DO. Again.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.Well done on ignoring the majority of my post, which talks about how effective theories are used, accurately, in mainstream physics. Well done on concentrating on just a small part of my post and then complaining I don't say anything relevent.

Because you ignored the relevent part. :rolleyes:

No doubt you either didn't understand it or you didn't want to accept it. Either way, it demonstrates how you're talking nonsense.

I don't see why we even need to go as far as honouring this topic with the mention of Quantum Field Theory. It's already been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Martillo doesn't understand the maths behind the mathematical theories he's trying to debunk. Martillo himself has admitted as much indirectly by saying (in so many words) "Ok, I was wrong about that one, but how about if I just make this bogus argument instead?" That on top of making references to brief Wikipedia outlines of topics normally covered in 400 page textbooks on differential equations, and doing so in a way which makes it blatantly evident he had never heard of such topics until we pointed him to the relevant Wikipedia articles in the first place.

So you're attempting to use a 1st year book to prove that 3rd year topics are worthless.


That's the problem, you have gone too far through wrong theories and you must note that you can go yet furher jast getting wrong conclusions just because you are starting from wrong theories.
You should pay more attention to the basics and that's why a 1st year book become important. At least it only talks about the "well recognized" theories and not the last "experimental" ones.


Sure, I know nothing and Alphanumeric and CptBork are the couple of 21th century Physics Wisdoms...

You know I can only see that the rational argumentation to refute my claims has gone away giving place to a personal disregarding of myself.
For me is just the signal that I have won the dispute!

But at the end anyone believes in what he want to believe isn't it?
Good luck with your beliefs.

I can only just wait for some time in some future...

That's the problem, you have gone too far through wrong theories and you must note that you can go yet furher jast getting wrong conclusions just because you are starting from wrong theories.
You should pay more attention to the basics and that's why a 1st year book become important. At least it only talks about the "well recognized" theories and not the last "experimental" ones.Proof you don't even know about the concepts of those theories.

General relativity and quantum electrodynamics (the theory of photon interactions) are the most experimentally verified theories EVER. Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations can be shown to be wrong with modern equipment. Hell, that's been the case for almost 100 years! QED and GR have never been shown to fail (yet anyway).

I know the basics. I ****ing teach the basics to undergraduates. I'm paid by professors to tell 18, 19 and 20 year olds how to do classical mechanics!

You STILL haven't looked up what an effective theory is. You STILL haven't looked up QED, 'quantum electrodynamics', the theory of photons. That's why I get personal. You make it obvious that discussion of physics is pointless because you simply are not interested in even checking if your claims are right.

You've been wrong about maths and physics. You didn't bother to even learn those 1st year textbooks you talk of. I teach 1st years how to do solutions to ordinary and partial differential equations, in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions. I know how to work out such things in any number of dimensions. I work every day with 6 dimensional calculus. I got a distinction in my 4th year exams in black holes, a course on curved 4 dimensional space-time, involving vector calculus and differential equations in multiple dimensions. So don't give me that "You should look at the basics more". I know the basics. I know the advanced stuff. You make it obvious you don't.

If you know the basics of vector calculus, you should be able to do that question I asked you. It's a 1st year question. I would expect my 1st year students to know how to do that by Christmas time of their 1st year.
For me is just the signal that I have won the dispute!No, it's a signal I've lost patience with your ignorance and lies.

Can you do vector calculus? Yes or no? The answer seems to be no. If that's wrong, do the question I asked you. It should take you about 4 minutes. If you cannot do vector calculus you cannot do electromagnetism. If you cannot do vector calculus you cannot do relativity. Or quantum electrodynamics. If you cannot be even bothered to read about those things on something as 'layman' as Wikipedia (which you would find by Googling 'photon') then you aren't interested in even checking if your claims are right.

You're a liar and a fraud. Plain and simple. Prove me wrong. Prove you can actually DO electromagnetism. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to show this. Noone in the physics community is going to listen to the whining of someone who doesn't even know about the topic they complain about. If you cannot convince me, a lowly PhD student, you won't convince people like my supervisor (an expert in QED processes in experiments).

You forgot to mention how he completely ducked Jefimenko's equations. He never even heard of them, nor retarded potentials either, yet he's telling us what can and can't be done to solve Maxwell's equations. But you're right, why bother with all that stuff if he doesn't even know vector calculus.

Hey Martillo, I have an even easier problem for you, and though you could always cheat and find someone who knows the answer, at least the answer will only take a few seconds of your valuable time to solve and write down.

Can you name the following two famous mathematical theorems? If not, you're not even qualified to talk about electrostatics, let alone electromagnetism.

1st theorem:
\iiint_V \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{F}dV=\iint_{\partial V}\vec{F}\cdot\hat{n}dS

Where V is the volume over which the triple integral is performed, \partial V is the boundary surface enclosing this volume, and \hat{n} is the unit normal vector on this boundary, pointing away from the enclosed volume. \vec{F} is any vector function which we may assume is infinitely differentiable, and for our sake we can also assume that the equations parametrizing the boundary are also infinitely differentiable. dV represents a volume integral, while dS represents a surface integral.

2nd theorem:
\iint_S \left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{F}\right)\cdot\hat{n} dS=\int_C \vec{F}\cdot\vec{dl}

Here, the symbols which can also be found in the 1st theorem all have the same meaning as they do in the 1st theorem. The integral on the left is performed over a surface, S, which can be assumed to be any simply-connected, bounded surface, whose parametric equations we may once again assume for our purposes to be infinitely differentiable. The integral on the right is a line integral along the curve C which bounds the surface S.

If you can name these two theorems, that still wouldn't mean you know very much, but it's the bare minimum for anyone who claims to understand Maxwell's equations and all the possible ways they can be solved.

For those lurkers curious what makes the difference between science and pseudoscience, have a good read on this thread and how unqualified its author is to make the claims he makes here. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than this.

Sure, I know nothing and Alphanumeric and CptBork are the couple of 21th century Physics Wisdoms...

Uhm... is not the title of your website "A New Light in Physics"? And you think we're the ones harbouring delusions of grandeur?

You know I can only see that the rational argumentation to refute my claims has gone away giving place to a personal disregarding of myself. For me is just the signal that I have won the dispute!

We've given you a number of simple, basic problems which you could use to demonstrate at least a minimal competency in this area. The problems I listed are things you should be able to answer in a split second if I asked you this stuff in person. Given your track record of making demonstrably false statements about math, and the fact that you continue to make such statements, you're not going to earn much respect from anyone who actually understands this stuff and can solve problems with it.

I can only just wait for some time in some future...

When you finally realize that you were trying to debunk a theory you didn't even understand, and why it's totally ridiculous to try doing so.

We've given you a number of simple, basic problems which you could use to demonstrate at least a minimal competency in this area. The problems I listed are things you should be able to answer in a split second if I asked you this stuff in person.
Sorry I cannot waste my time such a manner.

Given your track record of making demonstrably false statements about math, and the fact that you continue to make such statements, you're not going to earn much respect from anyone who actually understands this stuff and can solve problems with it.

I think you lost the part:
I wasn't wrong!
A linear differential equation of nth order can have n linearly independent solutions and the general solution can be expressed as a linear combination of them.
See at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_...ntial_equation
or for example: http://www.efunda.com/math/ode/linearode_terms.cfm

So what now???

When you finally realize that you were trying to debunk a theory you didn't even understand, and why it's totally ridiculous to try doing so.
I just need to know the basis because it fails in the basis. Why to deeply understand about waves' mathematics if they just don't exist?

Uhm... is not the title of your website "A New Light in Physics"? And you think we're the ones harbouring delusions of grandeur?

I'm not saying you are incompetent as you say to me, I'm just saying you are in the wrong way studying in deep and may be developing further theories that are wrong in the basis.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/crackpot_certificate_martillo.jpg

Well, if I'm a crackpot you are just a PARROT of current "Modern Physics"...

Michael R. Rogers is who?

Sorry I cannot waste my time such a manner.


I think you lost the part:

“
I wasn't wrong!
A linear differential equation of nth order can have n linearly independent solutions and the general solution can be expressed as a linear combination of them.
See at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_...ntial_equation
or for example: http://www.efunda.com/math/ode/linearode_terms.cfm

So what now???
”


Oh no, that part revealed one of your errors in full display for everyone to see. We already mentioned it, but you ran the stop sign without noticing. So here it is again, try #2:

Every equation in those links you provided is an example of an Ordinary Differential Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_differential_equation), also called an ODE (see link). Linear ordinary differential equations refer to functions of only a single variable, and have a finite basis set as their solution. But as it says in that very article,
Ordinary differential equations are to be distinguished from partial differential equations where there are several independent variables involving partial derivatives.
Partial Differential Equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_differential_equation) (see link), also known as PDE's, can have an infinite basis set of solutions, and in many cases require this, including when solving the electromagnetic wave equation in vacuum for many types of physical boundary conditions. Your problem is that Maxwell's equations are PDE's, not ODE's, so your point is completely incorrect.

Shhhhhhh, can you hear that? That's the sound of a bad theory going kaput.

I just need to know the basis because it fails in the basis. Why to deeply understand about waves' mathematics if they just don't exist?

Because your math is wrong. That's why you need to deeply understand.

I looked at your relativity "notes", and your supposed paradox has pretty much almost the exact same solution as the paradox of the twins, with all observers agreeing on the final result. Your use of the Lorentz time transforms is incorrect, as you, like many others, forgot to include the relativistic time shift. Relativity specifically says that events simultaneous in one frame need not be simultaneous in other frames.

The Lorentz time transformation is t'=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}. You won't understand these concepts properly just from a quick brushthrough of a freshman-level textbook, which seems to be your primary source of info.

Well, if I'm a crackpot you are just a PARROT of current "Modern Physics"...

AH-HA!!!

Now your crackpottery is standing out VERY plainly for all to see. We've seen a few people like you here before - the ones that think tens of thousands of professional physicists are all wrong because they been "indoctrinated" or brainwashed by common modern physics.

The simple little thing you fail to understand is that all those professionals actually USE "modern physics" in their work because those principles DO work! And along comes a little partially-educated little pipsqueak like you that claims he knows more than all those scientists combined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bugeye:

Ignorant people like you make me sick to my stomach!:mad:

Ignorant people like you make me sick to my stomach!:mad:

Eat more yogurt, it cures indigestion.

Oh no, that part revealed one of your errors in full display for everyone to see. We already mentioned it, but you ran the stop sign without noticing. So here it is again, try #2:

Every equation in those links you provided is an example of an Ordinary Differential Equation, also called an ODE (see link). Linear ordinary differential equations refer to functions of only a single variable, and have a finite basis set as their solution. But as it says in that very article,

“ Ordinary differential equations are to be distinguished from partial differential equations where there are several independent variables involving partial derivatives. ”

Partial Differential Equations (see link), also known as PDE's, can have an infinite basis set of solutions, and in many cases require this, including when solving the electromagnetic wave equation in vacuum for many types of physical boundary conditions. Your problem is that Maxwell's equations are PDE's, not ODE's, so your point is completely incorrect.

Shhhhhhh, can you hear that? That's the sound of a bad theory going kaput.

You have forgooten that in the "electromagnetic waves" análisis periodical solutions are looked for (in the form X = A.exp (- jwt) and here is where the general partial differential equation becomes an ordinary differential equation.
That was what Alphanumeric did and all references do.
But you have forgotten that...

Now your crackpottery is standing out VERY plainly for all to see. We've seen a few people like you here before - the ones that think tens of thousands of professional physicists are all wrong because they been "indoctrinated" or brainwashed by common modern physics.

The simple little thing you fail to understand is that all those professionals actually USE "modern physics" in their work because those principles DO work! And along comes a little partially-educated little pipsqueak like you that claims he knows more than all those scientists combined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You think I could be against something on current "Modern Physics"? You should take a look at my "Final Note" to the manuscript: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Final_Note.htm
I'm very conscient about what I'm confronting...

Sorry I cannot waste my time such a manner.Then noone will EVER take you seriously. As I said, if you cannot convince a PhD student you're competant at the area you talk about you'll never convince reviewers of journals. Which, incidentally, I've done on this very topic.
I think you lost the part:This was explained to you, PDEs don't follow the same rules as ODEs. And you cannot reduce a PDE to an ODE in general (or they would obey the same rules).

I even gave you an example, the solution to the wave equation in an interval.
I just need to know the basis because it fails in the basis. Why to deeply understand about waves' mathematics if they just don't exist?Ah, the excuse of the crank. Why learn something you know is wrong, despite you being proven wrong many times on even the simple things?
I'm not saying you are incompetent as you say to me, I'm just saying you are in the wrong way studying in deep and may be developing further theories that are wrong in the basis.You're the guy who cannot do vector calculus or PDEs. So your statement is pure hypocrisy.
You have forgooten that in the "electromagnetic waves" análisis periodical solutions are looked for (in the form X = A.exp (- jwt) and here is where the general partial differential equation becomes an ordinary differential equationWrong. You just picked a particular solution and then claimed it's a general solution.

For a start, the plane wave general solution to the wave equation is e^(ikx-wt). I even told you this. That's a function of 2 variables. The wave equation and Maxwell's equations are PARTIAL differential equations. You cannot say "They reduce in general to ODEs" because if they did, everyone would use the ODE form which are, in general, considerably easier.

Maxwells equations are multivariable differential equations in multiple dimensions. Hell, when you're not in 3 dimensions you don't even have equal numbers of electric and magnetic field degrees of freedom (there's n-1 for E and n(n-1)/2 for B). In cartesian coordinates they are not coupled, so you can solve the PDEs seperately. In other coordinates, like spherical coordinates, they are coupled and you have to consider them all simultaneously.

This is a FACT of basic vector calculus. Nothing to do with physics, the maths is unavoidable.
That was what Alphanumeric did and all references do.None of us made that mistake.
I'm very conscient about what I'm confronting...But you don't actually know any of it. Prove me wrong. I'm calling you a liar and a fraud.

Have you tried to get your work published? If not, why not. If so, what did the referee say?

You have forgooten that in the "electromagnetic waves" análisis periodical solutions are looked for (in the form X = A.exp (- jwt) and here is where the general partial differential equation becomes an ordinary differential equation.
That was what Alphanumeric did and all references do.
But you have forgotten that...

Nope, I haven't forgotten that, this statement is blatantly wrong as well. You're not solving for X(t), there's no such thing in this case. Classical waves aren't calculated as particles moving through space- every coordinate x at time t in the volume of interest has an associated electric field \vec{E}(x,t). Working in Cartesian coordinates, the standard basis set for the expansion of a 1-dimensional wave is, in your notation, e^{jk(x-ct)},\ e^{jk(x+ct)}, running over all values of k which fit the boundary conditions. In this notation, standard for electrical engineers, we write j=\sqrt{-1}. As you can see, every function in this basis set is a function of both position and time. Your proposed basis set only includes time, because you think you're solving the equation for a spring, which is just plain silly.

Here and on physorg.com, you've made bad proposals and then people have corrected you by pointing you to math articles on Wikipedia. You have then demonstrated a specific pattern of skim-reading these articles, not bothering to study the material in proper detail (which takes months or years), and then coming back to us mere days later with a new attempted proof which just shows your misunderstanding of the articles we referred you to in the first place. You are determined to find a flaw somewhere in Maxwell's theory, even though it's 100 times easier to poke holes in your own theory. The alternative would be to give up your theory, take your book down from amazon.com and start from scratch, but you'd rather run the gambit of challenging Maxwell from every ignorant point of view possible before you do that.

You think I could be against something on current "Modern Physics"? You should take a look at my "Final Note" to the manuscript: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Final_Note.htm
I'm very conscient about what I'm confronting...

As I mentioned above, your attempt to discredit relativity by inventing a new paradox is meaningless, because your paradox disappears when the equations of relativity are used properly, which you didn't. See the equation I wrote for the Lorentz time transform, then go look up Lorentz Transformations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) on Wikipedia. The reason you didn't know this stuff is because you're trying to learn relativity out of a freshman-level general physics textbook, and you won't learn how to do these types of calculations from such resources, they only cover the basic ideas.

You know, CptBork and Alphanumeric, what I wanted to discuss it have been already done and I have found the way to prove "electromagnetic waves" do not exist even in the more general case of superposition of waves (including infinite addition).
It doesn't matter what you say because I know my point was right, may be it need some poolishment but is a right approach. You are not able to discuss with me in a more conceptual approach because as students you have a mind totally fullfilled with "advanced math" and you only want to talk about "advanced math". I know because I have already passed that stage. The main problems in Physics are conceptual and not mathematical which are easier to solve since math has a complete methodology to follow to solve problems but there is no methodology to solve conceptual problems.

I'm sorry but I cannot waste more time in this kind of discussion and so I'm leaving.
Good luck.

You know, CptBork and Alphanumeric, what I wanted to discuss it have been already done and I have found the way to prove "electromagnetic waves" do not exist even in the more general case of superposition of waves (including infinite addition).
It doesn't matter what you say because I know my point was right, may be it need some poolishment but is a right approach. You are not able to discuss with me in a more conceptual approach because as students you have a mind totally fullfilled with "advanced math" and you only want to talk about "advanced math". I know because I have already passed that stage. The main problems in Physics are conceptual and not mathematical which are easier to solve since math has a complete methodology to follow to solve problems but there is no methodology to solve conceptual problems.

I'm sorry but I cannot waste more time in this kind of discussion and so I'm leaving.
Good luck.


Ahh-ha-ha-ha!!! The words of a looser.:D (Passed that stage, eh? With a first-level text book???????):D

And good riddance!!!!

and I have found the way to prove "electromagnetic waves" do not exist even in the more general case of superposition of waves (including infinite addition)..Both Cpt and I have pointed out that your 'general superposition' is wrong. You assume X = X(t). This is known as a stationary wave because the wave doesn't move in space, it just varies in time. THIS IS WRONG.

For instance, you cannot form the travelling wave solution X(x,t) = e^{i(kx-wt)} with your 'general solution'. Go on, check that's a solution for Maxwell's equation given a particular constraint on k and w. So you are not considering the general case.
It doesn't matter what you say because I know my point was rightHow are you right when we can give a simple counter example? It's like saying "No even number is prime" and then someone saying "What about 2?".
because as students you have a mind totally fullfilled with "advanced math" and you only want to talk about "advanced math". You think this is advanced maths? As I said, I teach this to 1st years. If you wanted 'advanced maths' then I suggest you look at QED, the quantum model of photons. Something else I'm competant at.
I know because I have already passed that stage. No, you haven't. We've proven you cannot do the maths of PDEs or vector calculus.
I know because I have already passed that stage. The main problems in Physics are conceptual and not mathematical which are easier to solve since math has a complete methodology to follow to solve problems but there is no methodology to solve conceptual problems.But you cannot solve even maths problems.

If it's so straight forward, why aren't you a maths professor? Did you do maths at university? I did.
I'm sorry but I cannot waste more time in this kind of discussion and so I'm leaving.Typical crank cop out.

I notice you don't answer my question about weather you've tried to get your work published. Afraid to admit it's been rejected? If you cannot stand up to even questions from maths/physics graduates, you'll never get your work published.

So you should be able to answer our questions, because our questions are peer review.

I bet you $100 you never get your work published in a reputable journal. I you ever get your work published in JHEP email me (gjw@soton.ac.uk) and I'll send you the money.

Both Cpt and I have pointed out that your 'general superposition' is wrong. You assume X = X(t). This is known as a stationary wave because the wave doesn't move in space, it just varies in time. THIS IS WRONG.

My reasononing is valid for the general case of travelling waves too! I didn't want to restrict to stationary waves and if I did it was just a mistake in notation in the hurry to answer fast.

Good bye.

Oh I see now, so now the story is that wherever you made a bad argument, it was just a mistake in notation. Well then fix your notation so we can show you why it's wrong anyway.

Sorry but I don't need that and is unproductive discussing with you and alphanumeric.
Bye.

Sorry but I don't need that and is unproductive discussing with you and alphanumeric.
Bye.Yes, it's unproductive because you ignore everything you say.

You cannot prove your claims, because they are wrong. We've asked for you to give your proofs and you cannot.