Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!news.yamada.gr.jp!passion.nalgo.co.jp!news.moat.net!prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!75a3b82f!not-for-mail From: "Lee Pugh" Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter References: <9d62a326.0407170443.5990dad7@posting.google.com> <9d62a326.0408100051.37a3eca4@posting.google.com> <9d62a326.0408152216.7082ef2d@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction Lines: 156 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.92.139.187 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr22.news.prodigy.com 1093645067 ST000 68.92.139.187 (Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:17:47 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:17:47 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: SCSYQNONXJTKB\TX@BON^UTAUSXB@DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIELDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:17:47 GMT Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:223 Can you send me a copy or a web link to Faradays letter that was to be opened after 100 years of his death, please. Kind regards, Lee Pugh "Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message news:a42650fc.0408182223.13cc9cbf@posting.google.com... > vktamhane12@rediffmail.com (V.K.Tamhane) wrote in message news:<9d62a326.0408152216.7082ef2d@posting.google.com>... > > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:... > > > 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". > > > > How can nature be described mathematiclly when by nature we mean > > physical phenomena? This is something impossible. Concepts cannot be > > outcome derived from mathematical equations. Maxwell did predict EM > > wave but his mathematical treatment was based on solid foundation of > > aether. When aether goes so also the wave. What you said is true that > > without mathematical equations physics is incomplete. However > > mechanism of the physical phenomenon is of primary importance and I > > must say very difficult to come by. > > By calling those indulging in verbose logic philosophoers > > and not physicists, Feynman is degrading improtance of concepts. No! > > Excellent work can be done without mathematics. Faraday is an immortal > > example. > > > > Rest of what you said, I snip because I fully agree with it. > > Give me some time to get acquainted with your work. Thanks. > > > Dear Mr Tamhane, > > I fully agree with you, and first of all that Faraday is really > perfect, immortal example of checked phenomenology and searching mind. > In addition, I would like to recall Faraday's letter which he > bequeathed to open in 100 years after his death and in which he was > first who understood that the speed of light is finite. This does not > disparage a least the merits of Maxwell and Hertz either of Eichenwald > experiments, but it speaks of Faraday genius. > I would like to mark that Maxwell, if we follow just Maxwell, also > understood the versatile and complicated processes in EM field much > deeper than is proposed now as a marc. The system of four equations is > not Maxwellian. Different sources tell, Maxwell had 12 or 14 > equations. Four equations are just like "Saga of Foresights" in the > last page of newspaper. And this is Hertz' or Heaviside's, but not > Maxwell's. I am far from mind to belittle these scientists, but having > shortened the general phenomenology, they shortened the meaning, > pursuing the simplicity like in Newtonian equations. It worsened the > situation that Maxwell, Hertz and Heaviside had available only > conservation laws for stationary fields and had not any experience, > how to work with delayed potentials. Should they have our conservation > theorems for dynamic fields to which I referred you, Maxwell would not > need to foresee the magnetoelectric induction law which completes the > general systems of equations. He would simply derive this law as a > corollary from the dynamic conservation theorem of circulation of > vector. But the fact that he predicted, even without all other what > Maxwell had done during his short life, makes him immortal. At the > same time, prediction cannot fully solve the problems of > phenomenology. The phenomenology is created as a symbiosis of physical > and mathematical formalism. If we ground only on philosophy, it is too > easy to slip into sophistry and philosophical fabrication. Operating > with mere mathematics, it is impossible to catch the nut of effect and > the way to improve the mathematical formalism. It is too easy to pass > to manipulations with mathematical symbols and to vary the statement > of problem, passing, just as in the first case, to a self-confident > abstraction. But without mathematics we cannot build a harmonious > conception. And just the fact that Maxwell had not a complete set of > initial data to formulate the integral phenomenology has caused the > complicacy and, finally, incompleteness of his conception. This was > not his guilt, it was a circumstance that experimental physics and > mathematical formalism of that time were not ready for solutions of > such level. And pity that many generations of scientists clearly saw > the problems of this system of equations and obeyed Maxwell authority > whose name this system bears, but they did not dare to enter this > labyrinth. I met also here in the newsgroups the colleagues who lost > the ability to think independently when approaching to the entrance to > this labyrinth. > This is the trouble of today physics that Relativity by Einstein and > his followers has brought to physics not so much new conception (all > their works are a patch-work quilt of separate unfinished works by > classical physicists) as the methodology to manipulate with > mathematics. Not in vain Feynman whom I cited in his following > lectures is surprised that, despite all bricks seem to be present, the > result does not tally. Their so-called discoveries are such for one > day, they fail after next experiments. And the problem is just that > mathematical formalism has to strongly follow the phenomenology stated > in the problem. If we have well studied phenomenology, the > mathematical formalism enables us to improve many aspects of > phenomenology and to operate with the help of tables, plots and > numerical predictions. But the mathematical formalism is not able to > exceed the limits of phenomenology, and if someone forced it, there > comes to force a known rule of extrapolation: the farther from > reliably checked results the lower reliability of prediction. To > develop, we have to improve the phenomenology which would > automatically improve the modelling equations and will allow us to > find the solutions exceeding the limits of today phenomenology. This > is the way as I see it - the only way of development which brings a > real and long-lasting success. > As an example I would mention Newton's equations. If we work with > small velocities, these equations give a complete and exact pattern of > processes. In my discussions with colleagues I multiply encountered > the attempts, so to say, to re-formulate or doubt Newtonian system in > the domain where it is true. Vain attempts. It remains impeccable and > closed as the mathematical formalism. But if we pass to high > velocities, the action and counter-action become inequal - the basic > principle on which the Newton's formalism is grounded is broken. This > naturally changes the modelling equations and solutions. Lorentz > understood it well, but due to definite circumstances he could not > finally formulate it. While Einstein simply primitivised Lorentz > equations and made so a bad service to physics. Some time we need to > sort these things out. The more that the issues of magnetic field > nature and of gravitation lay in these heaps. We tend this direction, > as possible. > On the other hand, as I already said, the phenomenological conception > without mathematics is doomed. We can recall Descartes. He formulated > all laws of dynamics "on his fingers", before Newton! But he had not a > trifle - he did not know the infinitesimals, though we cannot think > him mathematically ignorant, can we? ;-) And Newton would not succeed > to write his Principia, if not the conception of infinitesimals which > he had due to his teacher. The matter is, the outcome to some new > phenomenology is always caused by the developed new class of modelled > equations. Having these equations unsolved, it is difficult, or rather > impossible to correct our penetration into the unknown area. See, > Faraday with all his genius carried out his experiments with unipolar > motor - one step to a generator! - but he has not this step done, > because all his work was "on fingers". Mathematics did not follow his > phenomenology, and he was unable to make an advanced prediction. And > when Maxwell developed his mathematics, though complicated and > imperfect but allowing to calculate, it started the time of great > technological discoveries. And we can illustrate this connection > between the phenomenology and mathematical formalism by many facts > from the history of physics. So I am saying namely of symbiosis, and > in no case of chaotic turns of physics and mathematics. Such > "sequence" can create only monsters. The phenomenology and first basic > corroborating experiments have to precede. Then mathematical modelling > and new experiments have to be done, which with numerical > characteristics will corroborate this model correct and in this way > open the way for further development of phenomenology. Such is the way > which we see and our experience says it is successful. > > I would be interesting to hear your opinion. > > All the best, > > Sergey