Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail From: selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter Subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction Date: 14 Aug 2004 03:20:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 137 Message-ID: References: <9d62a326.0407170443.5990dad7@posting.google.com> <9d62a326.0408100051.37a3eca4@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.49.164.238 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1092478818 27512 127.0.0.1 (14 Aug 2004 10:20:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:217 vktamhane12@rediffmail.com (V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message news:<9d62a326.0408100051.37a3eca4@posting.google.com>... > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:... > > vktamhane12@rediffmail.com (V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message news:<9d62a326.0407170443.5990dad7@posting.google.com>... > > > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:... > > > > "Spaceman" wrote in message news:... [snip] > > Sorry for the delay in replying- on account of my pre-occupation. > Mathematics is now correct and it is a good example, which shows that > difference in the motional and induced emf cannot be separated > mathematically, even if non-homogeneous magnetic fields are > considered. Your further arguments are of course correct and it is a > good paper. > May I draw the conclusion? Mathematics is just a tool for > calculations and excellent at that but physical phenomenon is > independent of any formula. It is for this reason that the concepts > and mechanisms are important in physics. Not to calculate results but > to actually understand the physics itself. > You have taken great efforts to prove the basic and fundamental > mechanisms and certainly differentiated between the two actions > responsible for the magnetic field based electromotive force. Dear Mr Tamhane, how exactly you noted the connection between the mathematical and physical formalism in comprehension of deep underpinning of processes in nature. I from my side can only add that the mathematical formalism can be true even with some incorrect phenomenology. We see many examples in today physics based on the principle properly formulated by Feynman: "Philosophers try to tell of the nature without mathematics. I try to describe the nature mathematically". So it happens: if, for example, we do not penetrate into the physics, how EM excitation is passed, and represent the light as some particles - photons, then in some area of revelations we will be quite able to find a definite analogy with the observed phenomena and even to build quite harmonious mathematical formalism. However, all this formalism will be workable only in limits of phenomena on whose basis it was built. A step to the left either right - and the whole formalism fails. On the other hand, the grasp of failing formalism out of the area where it is true forms the dogmatism and its direct consequence - the crisis in science, which several generations of scientists so hard and heroically surmount. We encounter such cases at every step. For example, in the circuit theory, colleagues have persuaded themselves that two-port theory is absolutely true; they do not want to see that in its very essence it is inapplicable to mismatched ladder filters. They do not care that their calculations are irrelevant to the experimental results. They care only to be correct in their secondary mathematical transformations and shut their eyes to everything other. The same in mechanics. The specialists run in hurry to calculate nonlinear vibrations, having not solved rigorously and in full amount the problems of linear dynamics. I show them that the solutions on which they rely are essentially incomplete; I show that in Kirhgoff mathematical model the general differential equation and initial and boundary conditions are superfluous, because the initial conditions are given by the external force and boundary conditions have been already used in the very differential equation. Colleagues "do not understand" this, as they rely on mathematical formalism as such, they threw away the limitations which the authors of conceptions initially introduced - and live in their virtual world of attractors and fractals feeling happy of complicated mathematics. The same we see in astronomy. They like the theories of black holes, Doppler substantiation of red shift, galaxy cannibalism - and no one cares now that no astronomic observation evidences them clearly. No one cares to deepen their understanding of physics of processes. They are happy of abstract mathematical modelling based not on the physics but on convenient fantasies. The difficulty is here that we can easily deceive the mathematics. It is enough to introduce convenient laws and postulates in the statement of problem, then the mathematics will flow in usual fully harmonious way. And only the physics is able to show the math incorrect, comparing the result with experiment. On the other hand, the physics without mathematics loses its sense, too, as mathematics reveals the structure of many links which are difficult to be seen mentally. We often encountered such difficulty that some colleagues, having built a merely mental conception, did not take into account some outwardly negligible regularities which could be revealed only mathematically. With it, in description of process they automatically did not account some important nuances, usually connected with resonance phenomena. In this way merely mental conceptions are doomed to be incorrect. And the more complicated are phenomena with which we deal the more responsibility they put on us we to model these processes comprehensively and correctly and to provide the complete description of their pattern. Partially this is reflected in our paper to which you responded so favourably. As far as we see, in this paper we raised more questions than provided solutions. And this is quite objectively. In EM induction phenomenology we still have too many unstudied aspects, in particular I mean the difference in motional and induced emf, as you so correctly emphasised. Actually, permanent magnetic field does not deliver work, and time-variable does - this is a very old question raised by Ampere in his unsuccessful attempts to reveal the induction in permanent magnetic field. As far as we could, we showed that out of understanding the essence of the induction process, it is impossible to formulate the fully correct field equations. And here the standard trick of physics - to postulate the phenomenon - cannot be of help. The postulation will not enable us to leave the limits of postulation itself, just as the vector representation through the flux of vector disables us to see the process itself in all its diversity and revelations. We think, it is a great problem and one of paramount problems in the field theory. The second no less important problem is, standard modelling equations of fields have been built on the basis of vector analysis developed for stationary fields. And this concerns not only Maxwell theory but also hydrodynamics. In our papers Transformation of divergence theorem in dynamical fields http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#div Theorem of curl of a potential vector in dynamical fields http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v2_2/contents.html#curl On gradient of potential function of dynamic field http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#grad we made some progress in order to correct the standard equations for dynamic fields, though, undoubtedly, this work is far from being done. But we have to develop, if we want to build really universal equations for the field, as at due time the laws for classical mechanics have been formulated. In this view, it seems to me very important to continue our discussion, to draw the colleagues and to explain them in this discussion the depth of this problem, which, as we both see, most colleagues simply do not understand. Thank you for this in advance, Sergey