Detailed treatment of Maxwell's errors

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The locomotive is physics, not mathematics!

Agree with that... For example at our scale 2 and 2 will do 4.. Now considering the expansion model of the universe, will do this sum (and all others) exactly right ?? At giant scale i expect 4.. with a certain incertitude under .00000000....

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Someone carefully destroyed all traces of this article ... What do you think - "Who did this?"

Trump?

Johan Prins claimed diamond was a superconductor in 2003.

Can diamond now be a superconductor? – Physics World

A physicist claims he has seen room-temperature conductivity in diamond

physicsworld.com

This was met with skepticism but also much interest.

The experimental evidence was poor.

In his experiments, Prins measures the current that flows between the diamond and a gold-plated probe as the distance between them is varied. When a voltage of +1000 V is applied, the current always settles down at a value of about 0.5 mA for separations up to about 16 µm, after which it falls to zero. A current also flows in the opposite direction when a voltage of –1000 V is applied, but it decreases more rapidly with distance. The experiments are performed at room temperature in a vacuum of 10^–6 mbar.

Prins argues that a thin “electron-charge” layer is formed in the vacuum just above the surface of the diamond, and that a depletion layer of positive charges forms in the diamond. This is similar, he says, to the Schottky diode that is generated between an n-type semiconductor and a metal. Prins then applies the equations that describe electron transport through a Schottky diode to his system. He finds that as more and more electrons are extracted from the diamond, the density of electrons in this layer reaches a critical value at which a Bose–Einstein-type condensate of electron pairs forms. Current continues to flow from the diamond cathode through this layer to the anode, even though there is no voltage across the layer – a sign of superconductivity.

However, the rest of the diamond community remains to be convinced. Richard Jackman of University College London, who edited the special issue of the journal in which Prins’ papers appear, describes them as “largely theoretical papers, thought provoking and very controversial – the end conclusions remain open to debate”.

Prins admits that he must show that the state can expel magnetic fields to conclusively prove that the state is superconducting. However, he has recently retired and does not have the facilities to perform such an experiment. He has offered to fly his samples to another lab but has not yet found any volunteers. Prins and two colleagues are also trying to secure patents on the ideas.

In addition, Prins is half-way through writing six theoretical papers that will, he claims, fully explain the results and shed new light on the mechanisms underlying high-temperature superconductivity.

Since then - no better experimental evidence.

People here could perhapsconsider:

When one lone scientist claims new theory based on debatable evidence, and no subsequent evidence backs this up....

Just MAYBE - it is one wrong scientist (as happens) rather than all the other scientists having got it wrong and continued to do this from 20 years.

AS for HTS - the recent experiment and theory are coherent and it seems we have now a clear consistent mechanism

https://www.quantamagazine.org/high-temperature-superconductivity-understood-at-last-20220921/

Quote from Cherepanov2020

According to Maxwell, the electric field does not exist in nature.

Doesn't equation 1 above imply electric field exists in nature? How else does it have a non-zero divergence?

Черепанов, ну ты отжигаешь! Докопался до великого ученого 19 века как пьяный до радио. Ещё можно докопаться до Ньютона, мол яблоки у него неправильные. И до всех остальных, Фарадея, например. И главное, Максвелл не может ответить на глупости в его адрес.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Doesn't equation 1 above imply electric field exists in nature? How else does it have a non-zero divergence?

So in nature also the lightning doesn't exist.

Quote from Drummer

his apples are wrong.

Faraday's flux? Newton's apples

Don't forget Gauss like the Euro has

...or Lagrange...

The law was first^[1] formulated by Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1773,^[2] followed by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835,^[3

Quote from Cherepanov2020

There is no such concept in modern physics that you introduced - "why couldn't 'charge' ....... around the proton and electron".

Sorry if I offend the Gods of Modern Physics by asking a question..

reconstruction of history

Quote from RobertBryant

formulated by Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1773,[2] followed by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835,

..is it a Russian thing? historical reconstruction?

According to Cherepanov

Maxwell is the villain.. at least from 1855

but there are other accomplices in the centuries of physics

Lagrange 1773... Gauss 1835.... Thomson..1848... Faraday...sundry West Europeans..

By January 1832

the concept of an electromagnetic field had taken firm roots in Faraday's mind.

Two months later he wrote:

"When a magnet acts upon a distant magnet or a piece of iron, the influencing cause ...

proceeds gradually from magnetic bodies, and requires time for its transmission

which will probably be found to be very sensible.

I think also that I see reason for supporting that electric induction (of tension) is also performed in a similar progressive way."

The first support of Faraday's field concept came from William Thomson,

later Lord Kelvin. Thomson showed that lines of force could be used to explain the mathematical theory of electrostatic action

This approach was brought to completion by James Clark Maxwell in 1855.

Maxwell used Faraday's concepts about changing magnetic flux to lay the foundations of a complete theory of electromagnetism.

About the special trait of Faraday's method this is what Maxwell had to say:

"Faraday in his mind's eye, saw lines of force traversing all space

where the mathematician saw centres of force attracting at a distance

. Faraday saw a medium where they saw nothing but a distance.

Faraday sought the seat of phenomena in real action going on in the medium,

they were satisfied that they had found it in a power of action at a distance impressed on the electric fluids

. When I had translated what I considered to be Faraday's ideas into a mathematical form

, I found that, in general, the results of the two methods coincided ..

could be expressed much better in terms of the ideas derived from Faraday than in their original form. "

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4025890

Quote from THHuxleynew

When one lone scientist claims new theory based on debatable evidence, and no subsequent evidence backs this up

I agree. But if you read 'The Physics Delusion' you will see that Prins work was replicated. Though that seems to be where the trail goes cold.

Quote from Alan Smith

I agree. But if you read 'The Physics Delusion' you will see that Prins work was replicated. Though that seems to be where the trail goes cold.

The Prins experimental work was anomalous but not conclusive or even strongly indicative of superconductivity. There are weird results everywhere which no-one has worked out an exact mechanism for - if this were superconductivity there would be other confirmatory evidence and people would start to be more interested. Prins was interesting at the time because he promissed theoretical explanations as well as experimental evidence.

Prins is notable for being weirdly wrong about simpler electromagnetic stuff that is understood: which is perhaps why he over-interprets debatbale results:

Superconductivity at room temperature?? - Page 50 - International Skeptics Forum

Prins says:

You are blatantly lying again. I have claimed that there cannot be any charge accumulation at the interfaces while an ohmic current is flowing and that it is then wrong to invoke Gauss' law (as if a free electron current is flowing through vacuum) to explain the change in electric-field when passing through the boundary. Correct, Gauss' law does not apply in this case, as you have applied it, since there is no charge accumulation at the interfaces.

There can be (and often is) charge accumulation at interfaces when an ohmic current is flowing. I don't think he has ever done simple device physics: or if he has done it does not understand it.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

According to Maxwell, the electric field does not exist in nature. Why is that ? I explained this in my article - Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023. About the "charge" I wrote above - this is the ethereal mass or photon mass that the electron "stores". This is the physical meaning of the charge. The more mass an electron absorbs and, as they say, an electron "gets heavier", the higher its magnetic properties and its magnetic potential - the more voltage it creates in the network, or rather, not one electron, but their combination. Thus, the electrons create a mass density gradient in the conductor. The more mass the electrons are pumping in the conductor, the higher the reading on your ammeter.

Are you afraid to part with the "electrostatic charge according to Maxwell"? You will have to gradually get used to the new reality. I emphasize that this is a reality, not an invention of Maxwell ... If I were you, I would ask myself this question - “Why did Maxwell distort the teachings of Charles Coulomb? Why didn’t Maxwell follow William Thomson? What was his motive for this? wanted to lead the physical community into the wilds?" Understand the following - you cannot develop physics without relying on the works of the past generation of physicists ... If you carefully read the section "Electrostatics" in Maxwell's treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", then to your surprise you will not see citations of the treatises of Charles Coulomb and Thomson ... And I cited excerpts from these treatises for you ... Why did Maxwell act so casually? What was his true purpose? What did he want to confuse us with you? If so, then he succeeded admirably... For 150 years, physics relied on Maxwell's mistakes... And another strange story... Why did physicists "close their eyes" to Maxwell's revelations made by Karl Schreber in 1899?

Did they do it on purpose? What for ?

Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/rZpb/fzFv6ttNv

Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://docs.google.com/docume…ueQn-mTE/edit?usp=sharing

Display More

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Please be correct and quote me correctly, do not distort my text!

I didn't write it - "According to Maxwell, the electric field does not exist in nature."

I wrote like this - "The fact is that for 5 years since I abandoned such concepts in physics as "electrostatic charges" on the proton and electron, I realized that there is no "electric field" in nature, I realized that there are no" electric forces according to Maxwell" in nature "."

You wrote exactly what I quoted. It was copied via the quote tool here and I just deleted later stuff. See the full quote above. Or just look back.

Please don't accuse people of misquoting you when it is here for all to see. There is enough misinformation on this thread.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Also the Gauss flux law does not hold for a homogeneous surface charge as Jackson claims

Especially in the near field close to the surface..

"

"Gauss's Electrical law defines the relation between charge ("Positive" & "Negative") and the electric field.

The law was initially formulated by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835."

"In Gauss's law, the electric field is the electrostatic field. "

Maxwell's Equations - Gauss's Electric Field Law

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Electric field according to Maxwell

Correction... Electric Field according to Gauss 1835

thereafter Maxwell..1855

..sundry West European 19th Century Scientists also involved

I remember doing this kind of rote learning at high school..1972

not Jackson.. but Halliday and Resnick.... it

might take some time to correct the textbooks..

http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~pgautam/wf/PHYS511/PHYS511HW1.pdf