# Detailed treatment of Maxwell's errors

• This confusion arises mainly from the serious mistake of not having recognized the fundamental role of the vector potential,

No need to run ahead of the locomotive ... Before talking about this - "This confusion arises mainly from the serious mistake of not having recognized the fundamental role of the vector potential,...", start to deal with who and when he introduced the concept " vector potential "... Understand how physics developed ... In what year was it done? Why was this done?

And the story goes like this...

In the middle of the 19th century, G. Helmholtz proved a theorem from which it followed that in any material, elastic medium, only two classes of perturbations can exist.

This is a vortex and gradient - rotational and translational displacement of the particles of the medium.

The gradient field is defined as the gradient of the scalar potential - gradφ.

The vortex field is defined as the curl of the vector potential - rofA.

Further, he proved the main theorem of classical field theory - the uniqueness theorem for the solution of field problems - the "Helmholtz theorem" from which it follows that:

Direct problem

- if the spatial distributions of the gradient field sources and/or vortex field exciters are given, then the spatial distribution of the scalar potential φ or/and the vector potential A are uniquely determined as a solution of the Laplace equations and/or the double vector product of the nabla operator, respectively.

Inverse problem

- if the spatial distribution of the scalar potential φ or/and the vector potential - A is given, then the spatial distribution of the sources φ or/and the exciters of the vector potential - A are uniquely determined by solving the corresponding differential equations.

By substituting the corresponding boundary and initial conditions into the solutions, we obtain exact particular solutions of specific constructive problems.

Based on the general field theory, Helmholtz built the theory of electric gradient and vortex electromagnetic fields.

Can we physicists trust Helmholtz's mathematics? Can we unmistakably assume that such physical objects as the electron and the proton obey the mathematics of Helmholtz? The answer is unequivocal - no! We cannot trust Helmholtz's mathematics... And as it turns out, we cannot trust Maxwell's mathematics! Physics, as we see from the results of experiments, does not follow mathematics - physics has its own laws and we have not studied them yet - we are just trying to do it!

The locomotive is physics, not mathematics!

• 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....

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

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. "

• 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.

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

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 "."

"In nature, there is no "Coulomb barrier according to Maxwell"".

In addition, this thread discusses my article, in which I analyze Maxwell's mistakes in his treatise of 1873 "Electricity and Magnetism". If you do not agree with me, then quote my article and lay out your arguments against my text.

I am not going to respond to lengthy and literary remarks addressed to me, I will only respond to those comments that relate to my article and the physics that is touched upon in it.

The formulas that you presented use the parameter "E" - the strength of the electric field, but I proved that Maxwell was wrong and there is no electric field in nature, and therefore "electric field strength" is a mistake.

The last 20 years of physics in their experiments have shown us the absence of a "Coulomb barrier" - this proves that Maxwell's formula for "electric force" is fake, and there is no "Coulomb according to Maxwell" law in nature.

• 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:

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.

• 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.

• 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.

Sorry.

I did not notice that the Google translator distorted the meaning of my phrase - Электрического поля по Максвеллу в природе не существует. - According to Maxwell, the electric field does not exist in nature. To save my meanings and my thought, it is required to put this phrase in quotation marks -

"Electric field according to Maxwell" does not exist in nature.

• 6 hours ago...

Today I added a new paper to research_gate https://www.researchgate.net/p…67405461_Basics_of_fields

Physics journals do not like news that refute century old claims and contradict standard books of physics like Jackson.

Basic finding:: There are no real 1/r fields. Thus all physics (QM/QED, etc.) that uses this simplification is toy physics for the child yard. Also the Gauss flux law does not hold for a homogeneous surface charge as Jackson claims. This has huge implications.

• 4 hours ago

The same happened to to GR - general relativity. Not even Einstein did understand it. GR is pure math and as such highly important. For physics it has zero relevance despite a never ending flow of people that claim other wise.

Fields have sources. Fields can only be detected by forces. Forces have an origin not so in GR...

• 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. "

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..

Edited 2 times, last by RobertBryant ().

• Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that this thread discusses Maxwell's treatise of 1873, and not Gauss' treatise or someone else. Item 44 "The Electric Field" under "Electrostatics" is discussed here. I am not going to discuss what you wrote.

• If you want to discuss the delusions of Gauss, then for this you should study his treatises. And it should be discussed in a separate thread.

• Theoria Attractionis Corporum Sphaeroidicorum Ellipticorum Homogeneorum Methodo Nova Tractata, Gauss, 1813 -

Gauss C. F. ( 1813) Theoria Attractionis Corporum Sphaeroidicorum Ellipticorum Homogeneorum Methodo Nova Tractata Pg 357 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
In this article we find the formulation of the famous Gauss theorem on divergence, that was stipulated after by M. Ostrogradsky  in 1828
archive.org

Gauss's treatise of 1813... The treatise is mathematical, not physical... And this is understandable - Gauss's arsenal in 1813 did not have the modern knowledge that we have now. That was 210 years ago... Do you really want to rely on the delusions of Gauss today? Or Gauss' 1835 treatise... 188 years ago...

By the way, Gauss' treatise was not published in 1835... Gauss gave his notes to Weber, who published them in 1867... Can we trust such publications today? Maybe Weber corrected something there? Nobody knows... It's the same with Cavendish's notes, which were given to Maxwell, who then made them public... and interpreted them as he wanted.