5 ms·

Interestingly the 4 "Maxwell" Equations as we know them today in its algebraic form are actually developed by Heaviside. The original 12 Maxwell equations conta

by sprash 6y ago

Interestingly the 4 "Maxwell" Equations as we know them today in its algebraic form are actually developed by Heaviside. The original 12 Maxwell equations containing ugly complex calculus expressions are far less elegant and unintuitive.

UncleSlacky 6y ago
In doing so he left out some interesting physics, though.
- vecter 6y ago
  Can you explain?
  - dboreham 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity ?
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Could also be this - https://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1186.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1186.pdf
  - UncleSlacky 6y ago
    I'm not an expert, but there is for example a comment in the Wiki about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations#The_term_Maxwell's_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations... "Heaviside's equations, which are taught in textbooks and universities as Maxwell's equations are not exactly the same as the ones due to Maxwell, and, in fact, the latter are more easily forced into the mold of quantum physics" This paper goes into more detail - essentially the Heaviside equations are designed to be easy for electrical engineers to use, through an appropriate choice of gauge (Lorenz), which limits their true scope. Maxwell's magnetic scalar equation has also been ignored: http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_electrodynamics_6.03.pdf http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_e...
    - rrss 6y ago
      The difference is that some of Maxwell's early formulations focused more on the scalar and vector potentials, while Heaviside's formulation focuses on the electric and magnetic fields. The potentials are more natural for quantum physics, and are arguably physical entities observable in quantum effects (Aharonov–Bohm effect), but in classical electrodynamics both formulations are exactly equivalent. Heaviside's formulation doesn't leave out any interesting physics present in Maxwell's original formulation, though there is interesting physics not predicted by classical electrodynamics. > essentially the Heaviside equations are designed to be easy for electrical engineers to use, through an appropriate choice of gauge (Lorenz), which limits their true scope As for your linked paper - it is full of inaccuracies and faux-mysteries that are actually either well explained in mainstream physics or simply manufactured by the author. I'll respond to some of the more blatant problems below. > Then there is one ofour first elephants in the room. If this simplification of reformulated 12 of 20 equations to give us todays mathematical framework, what happened to the other eight equations? Here's what happened to them: they have been lost, rejected or forgotten by mainstream physicists. Just kidding! Nowadays we call them "Ohm's Law," "conservation of charge", and the definition of the electric displacement field. This is not a secret - you can read Maxwell's 1865 paper and compare to the modern version, or it's even on your wikipedia page. > [ various whining about the displacement current ] Please refer to any source on electrodynamics. It is widely acknowledged that "displacement current" is not really a current, it's just a name for the contribution of a time-varying electric field to magnetic fields. > The constant mu0 is a constant that is measured from the forces created from electric currents flowing thru COPPER conductors.These relations have worked fine for electric currents flowing thru COPPER wire conductors. However,when we use this constant for other types of electric currents in different substances we end up with the wrong values and the wrong assumptionson how these materials react to electric currents The permeability of free space is not dependent on copper conductors. > Yet,while in the software worldleaving loose ends like uninitialized variables or unconnected interrupt vectors is considered sloppy at best. The physics world seems to be very happy with leaving loose ends,like extra equations and unsolved potentials,around with no real effort to resolve them. Yeah, gauge freedom is a thing. It's fine. A lot of this "paper" seems to be freely mixing the original formulations of Maxwell's equations with some "generalization" of Maxwell's equations proposed in this: http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/GeneralisationOfClassicalElectrodynamics.pdf http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/GeneralisationOfClass... (cited on page 39), which adds some random terms the equations to yield a new physical scalar field, which no one has ever seen. I'd strongly recommend that you find a better source for your study of electrodynamics than this document by some dude trying to sell yet another propellantless vacuum thruster.
- amelius 6y ago
  Could you please provide a link?
  - UncleSlacky 6y ago
    http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_electrodynamics_6.03.pdf http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_e...
  - UncleSlacky 6y ago
    See reference 15 on the Wikipedia page for "History of Maxwell's Equations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations#cite_note-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations... I found what appears to be the referenced paper here: https://aflb.minesparis.psl.eu/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf https://aflb.minesparis.psl.eu/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf
billfruit 6y ago
Also did have a role in popularizing the the usage of vectors or was it someone else?

by sprash 6y ago

UncleSlacky 6y ago

In doing so he left out some interesting physics, though.

vecter 6y ago
Can you explain?
- dboreham 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity ?
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Could also be this - https://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1186.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1186.pdf
- UncleSlacky 6y ago
  I'm not an expert, but there is for example a comment in the Wiki about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations#The_term_Maxwell's_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations... "Heaviside's equations, which are taught in textbooks and universities as Maxwell's equations are not exactly the same as the ones due to Maxwell, and, in fact, the latter are more easily forced into the mold of quantum physics" This paper goes into more detail - essentially the Heaviside equations are designed to be easy for electrical engineers to use, through an appropriate choice of gauge (Lorenz), which limits their true scope. Maxwell's magnetic scalar equation has also been ignored: http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_electrodynamics_6.03.pdf http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_e...
  - rrss 6y ago
    The difference is that some of Maxwell's early formulations focused more on the scalar and vector potentials, while Heaviside's formulation focuses on the electric and magnetic fields. The potentials are more natural for quantum physics, and are arguably physical entities observable in quantum effects (Aharonov–Bohm effect), but in classical electrodynamics both formulations are exactly equivalent. Heaviside's formulation doesn't leave out any interesting physics present in Maxwell's original formulation, though there is interesting physics not predicted by classical electrodynamics. > essentially the Heaviside equations are designed to be easy for electrical engineers to use, through an appropriate choice of gauge (Lorenz), which limits their true scope As for your linked paper - it is full of inaccuracies and faux-mysteries that are actually either well explained in mainstream physics or simply manufactured by the author. I'll respond to some of the more blatant problems below. > Then there is one ofour first elephants in the room. If this simplification of reformulated 12 of 20 equations to give us todays mathematical framework, what happened to the other eight equations? Here's what happened to them: they have been lost, rejected or forgotten by mainstream physicists. Just kidding! Nowadays we call them "Ohm's Law," "conservation of charge", and the definition of the electric displacement field. This is not a secret - you can read Maxwell's 1865 paper and compare to the modern version, or it's even on your wikipedia page. > [ various whining about the displacement current ] Please refer to any source on electrodynamics. It is widely acknowledged that "displacement current" is not really a current, it's just a name for the contribution of a time-varying electric field to magnetic fields. > The constant mu0 is a constant that is measured from the forces created from electric currents flowing thru COPPER conductors.These relations have worked fine for electric currents flowing thru COPPER wire conductors. However,when we use this constant for other types of electric currents in different substances we end up with the wrong values and the wrong assumptionson how these materials react to electric currents The permeability of free space is not dependent on copper conductors. > Yet,while in the software worldleaving loose ends like uninitialized variables or unconnected interrupt vectors is considered sloppy at best. The physics world seems to be very happy with leaving loose ends,like extra equations and unsolved potentials,around with no real effort to resolve them. Yeah, gauge freedom is a thing. It's fine. A lot of this "paper" seems to be freely mixing the original formulations of Maxwell's equations with some "generalization" of Maxwell's equations proposed in this: http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/GeneralisationOfClassicalElectrodynamics.pdf http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/GeneralisationOfClass... (cited on page 39), which adds some random terms the equations to yield a new physical scalar field, which no one has ever seen. I'd strongly recommend that you find a better source for your study of electrodynamics than this document by some dude trying to sell yet another propellantless vacuum thruster.
amelius 6y ago
Could you please provide a link?
- UncleSlacky 6y ago
  http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_electrodynamics_6.03.pdf http://electricspacecraft.org/uploads/3/5/4/1/35412744/new_e...
- UncleSlacky 6y ago
  See reference 15 on the Wikipedia page for "History of Maxwell's Equations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations#cite_note-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations... I found what appears to be the referenced paper here: https://aflb.minesparis.psl.eu/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf https://aflb.minesparis.psl.eu/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf

billfruit 6y ago

Also did have a role in popularizing the the usage of vectors or was it someone else?