In the question, if there exists a still unknown phenomenon that influences the
electromagnetic environmental compatibility, we must fall back far until upon the roots of
our physical understanding. Here we find a fundamental principle that until today is not
doubted and that is regarded as elementary, the principle of causality. Every result of a
measurement, every interpretation is checked for causality and only after passing this
examination it is accepted and published.
This principle of cause and effect has established, not only in physics but also in many
other disciplines of science. Is an effect observed, so there immediately is asked for the
cause. This principle encounters us in daily life.
When all observable and measurable effects ever can be assigned to a cause without force
and without exceptional regulations then the logical result is a pyramid of causality. On
top a fundamental physical principle is found, that is regarded as given by nature or as
given by god and that with its properties is responsible as the cause for different effects.
These effects again appear as the cause for new effects and so on (Fig. 3.0).
Sometime we have removed us so far from the top of the pyramid that a direct reference to
the describable effects can't be made anymore, so the impression could arise that it
concerns an isolated and independent discipline. We should take care not to think in such
a monocausal way, because both delimitation and avoidance of interdisciplinary working
methods will inevitably steer us into a dead end!
This pyramid of causality stands for the vision of a "unified theory", like it is demanded
and sought-after by numerous research scientists. But as long as it is not found, we'll have
to do with unsolved problems of causality. About this any number of examples can be
given.
A physical principle based on the principle of causality is the vortex. This the eddy current
demonstrates us clearly. The cause for its origin is an alternating field. According to
Faraday's law of induction this induces a voltage that in a conducting medium results in a
current according to Ohm's law. Around this current according to Ampere's law an
alternating field forms, that points perpendicular to the current and overlaps the original
alternafing field. This induced field first of all is an effect that overlaps the cause and itself
becomes the cause. The effect that follows from that further overlaps and forms a new
cause etc. In this way vortices form.
Vortices quasi represent the principle of causality.
Principle of Causality:
violations of the principle of causality:
1. monopoles exist
2. starting point for the strong interaction
3. fields and quanta are a cause at the same time
4. hypothetical particles (gluons, quarks, etc.)
5. transmission of information with speeds faster than
light • with photons (University of Berkeley)
• with microwaves (University of Cologne)
• with laser beams (Technical Univ. of Vienna)
6. transmission of energy with speeds faster than light
• with scalar waves (Nicola Tesla)
Fig. 3.1: Causality or the principle of cause and effect
3.1 Principle of causality
Our physical view of life strictly obeys the rules of causality, the principle of cause and
effect. But there are numerous cases, where causality at first could not be fulfilled
anymore. Here alternate solutions had to be found to not endanger this very successful
principle. A few examples should clarify this:
1. Technically it is impossible to produce a magnetic monopole. When a north pole is
produced then the accompanying south pole is also formed. In the same way only the
positive and negative pole can be assembled as the so called dipole. In the microcosm
however we find monopoles. Electrons are such particles. To restore causality we must
grant the microcosm its own laws that are not valid in the macrocosm! But this
monocausal hypothesis contradicts the observation that the microcosm represents an
image of the macrocosm and vice versa. Doubts if this assertion is allowed are
reasonable.
2. Like charges repel each other and that the more the smaller the distance gets. In an
atomic nucleus positively like charged protons are together at the smallest possible
room without any repulsion happening. Arithmetically seen all atomic nuclei would
have to explosively fly to pieces. But because this doesn't happen, shortly a new and
supposedly fundamental interaction, the strong interaction, was introduced to save
causality. Nevertheless this interaction now holds the like particles in a not explained
manner together. Causality could be obtained only by the introduction of a new
fundamental phenomenon.
3. When causality should hold as the supreme principle, it should be demanded with
priority for the fundamental phenomena of physics. Instead, in quantum
electrodynamics the particle is attributed the same physical reality as the field. With the
wave-particle duality Heisenberg has given out the corresponding formula of
compromise. This slaps the face of the principle of cause and effect.
Causality on principle allows only two approaches for a solution: the quantum physical
approach. which holds the quanta as the cause for the fields, and the field-theoretical
ašproach. wherein only the fields act as the cause. For both approaches there are good
arguments. The field theorists cite that fields can exist also in the vacuum, so that there
exist fields without particles but never particles without fields. Against that the quantum
physicists hold that somewhere, even when quite far away, there exist particles and that
the measurable fields merely are their action at a distance.
Both approaches first arouse the impression to be fully equal. In the course of the
discoveries in the area of quantum physics, the corresponding approach has been able to
establish. But it demands that all phenomena have to be understood as a consequence of
particles. So should gravitons make gravitation possible, should gluons hold everything
together and the quarks form the basic building parts. Meanwhile there is only worked
with hypotheses. Out of poverty quantum physics meanwhile has said goodbye to strict
causality, after the number of the violations of causality has risen that much and in every
respect there is a lack of models of explanation. It seems as if the end is reached, as if the
quantum physical approach to a large extend is exhausted.
3.2 Field-theoretical approach
The field-theoretical approach is the very much older one. Until the last turn of the century
the world in this respect still was in order. Max Planck, by the discovery of quanta, has
plunged physics into a crisis.
Albert Einstein, who, apart from his lightquanta hypothesis, in his soul actually was a field
theorist, writes: ,,Is it feasible that a field theory allows us to understand the atomistic and
quantum structure of reality?". This question by almost all is answered with No. But I
believe that at present nobody knows anything reliable about it".
By the way the "No" can be justified by the fact that the field description after Maxwell is
by no means able to the formation of structure so that it is not possible for quanta to
appear as a consequence. The field-theoretical approach could, obstructed by Maxwell's
field theory, not further be pursued and to this until today nothing has changed.
Nevertheless it would be an omission to not at least have tried this approach and have it
examined for its efficiency. Maybe the above mentioned problems of causality let
themselves be solved much more elegantly. For this however the Maxwell theory must be
reworked to a pure field theory. With the well-known formulation it offends against the
claim of causality, since it is field theory and quantum theory at the same time. To
Maxwell himself the quanta were still unknown, but today we know that the fourth
Maxwell equation is a quantum equation:
(3.4)
After this the electric field is a source field whereby the individual charge carriers, like
e.g. electrons, act as sources to form in their sum the space charge density pel. The other
three Maxwell equations are pure wave equations. In this way the third equation identifies
the magnetic field as source free:
div B = O . (3.3)
This for Pauli probably was the reason to call, "the electric elementary quantum e- a
stranger in Maxwell-Lorentz' electrodynamics"
Let's return to the principle of causality according to which in the field-theoretical
approach the fields should act as a cause and not the particles. In a corresponding field
description quanta logically have not lost anything. It is only consistent to likewise
demand freedom of sources of the electric field:
Div D = O . (3.7)
When the electric field is not a source field, then what is it? The magnetic field is a vortex
field. Hence it would be obvious to also conceive the electric field as a vortex field.
Numerous reasons speak for it:
1. A non-vortical gradient field, like it is formed by charge carriers, merely represents a
special case of the general vortex field. Only by the generation of quanta a source field
can form as a special case.
2. The electromagnetic wave teaches us the duality between the E- and the H-field that
are directed perpendicular to each other and are in a fixed relation to each other. If one
of them is a vortex field then also the dual field must be a vortex field.
3.3 Duality
Duality is a fundamental physical principle. Opposite, but one another complementing
phenomena can be assigned to each other in pairs, like e.g.
Fi r s t of all we find the duality confirmed in the case of the electromagnetic wave
spreading in a homogeneous medium. Here the field pointers of E and H are directed
perpendicular to each other and are in a fixed relation to each other. But if the wave is
damped in the presence of matter, for instance by eddy currents, then by basing on
Maxwell's field theory the duality will vanish.
A good example for perfect duality provides the integral of a field strength vector along
the path from a to b:
Urn if the integration takes place along a closed path then the circulation yields
According to Ampere's law (3.1) the magnetic field can thus form enclosed currents and
spatially spreading eddy currents. The electric field on the other hand should be
irrotational (3.2).
Let's take the case that the electromagnetic wave is damped by eddy currents and the
magnetic field in this way becomes a vortex field. The electric field itself that, as said, is
in a fixed relation and perpendicular to the vortex field H, will show all the vortex-typical
properties. Hence nothing would be more obvious as to also grant the electric field a
formation of vortices:
Critics of this dual approach, like for instance Jackson or Lehner
reference to the fourth Maxwell equation the electric field should be understood as a
source field:
For a complete duality from the existence of electric monopoles, individual in the space
charge density contained charge carriers, the claim for magnetic monopoles is derived.
In spite of intensive search such north or south pole particles however until now could not
be found. Herein from the sight of criticism is seen a confirmation for the assumption that
Maxwell's field theory is self-contained and hence in principle may not be extended. The
critics have a problem of causality: They postulate source fields that at the same time
should be vortex fields. But if one asks how one should imagine such a field that is scalar
and at the same time vectorial, then it looks as if no one has ever made any thoughts about
it.
The from causality derived solution of the problem of lacking duality requires to extend
the Maxwell theory in one point, by introducing the potential vortex of the electric field
here and at the same time make a cut in another place:
div D = O (3.7)
With this formulation, the assumption of a freedom of sources in principle, the complete
duality already is reached: Now neither magnetic nor electric monopoles exist (Fig. 3.3)!
At first we have to accept the loss of the electron hoping that the calculation in the end
works out: the "exchange" vortices against particles, by which the quanta can be banned
from the field theory, suggests that the elementary particles themselves are nothing else as
spherical vortices that have found to an own physical reality.
3.4 Flow vortices
In fluid engineering convincing and strong indications for the correctness of the chosen
approach can be found. It benefits us that hydrodynamic vortices are visible or can be the
injection of smoke, e.g. in a wind-tunnel.
Already Leonardo da Vinci had observed at liquids that there exist two dual basic types
of plane vortices: "Among the vortices one is slower at the centre than at the sides, another
is faster at the centre than at the sides."
A vortex of the first type, also called "vortex with rigid-body rotation", is formed for
instance by a liquid in a centrifuge that due to its inertia of mass is pressed to the edge
because there the largest velocity exists. In an analogous way the electromagnetic vortex
in electrically conductive material shows the well-known "skin effect" (Fig. 3.4a).
To explain the other vortex Newton describes the experiment where a rod is dipped into a
liquid as viscous as possible and then is turned. In this potential vortex the velocity of the
particle increases the closer to the rod it is (Fig. 3.4b).
The duality of both vortex phenomena becomes obvious when we make ourselves clear
that in the experiment with the centrifuge the more liquid presses to the edge the less
viscous the medium is. And that on the other hand the potential vortex forms the stronger
the more viscous the medium is. As conclusion we read in text books that the viscosity of
the liquid decides whether a vortex with rigid-body rotation or a potential vortex is
formed.
3.5 Rankine vortex
When we, in a third experiment, immerse the centrifuge filled with water into a tough
medium and let the centrifuge rotate, then inside the centrifuge a vortex with rigid-body
rotation forms and outside the centrifuge a potential vortex forms (Fig. 3.5).
It is obvious that one vortex always causes the other vortex with the opposite properties
and so the existence of one causes that of the other. So in the first case, that of the vortex
with rigid-body rotation, outside the centrifuge potential vortices will form in the
surrounding air, whereas in the second case, that of the potential vortices, the turning rod
itself can be interpreted as a special case of a vortex with rigid-body rotation.
Hence in all conceivable experiments the condition always is fulfilled that in the centre of
the vortex the same state of "peace", that we can fix as "zero", prevails as in infinity.
When we take a tornado as an example, thus a whirlwind. In the "eye of the cyclone"
there's no wind at all. But when I go away from this spot, then I'm blown to the outside. I
can really feel the vortex with rigid-body rotation in the inside. If. however, I am standing
on the outside, then the potential vortex tries to pull me into the vortex. This potential
vortex is responsible for the structure and in the end also for the size of the tornado.
At the radius of the vortex, the place with the largest speed of the wind, an equilibrium
prevails. The vortex with rigid-body rotation and the potential vortex at this point are
equally powerful. Their power again is determined by the viscosity, which thereby fixes
the radius of the vortex!
Therefore meteorologists pursue with interest whether a tornado forms over land or over
water. Over the ocean for instance it sucks itself full with water. In that way the potential
vortex increases in power, the radius of the vortex gets smaller and the energy density
increases dangerously.
If the knowledge from hydrodynamics is transferred to the area of electromagnetism, then
the role of the viscosity is taken over by the electric conductivity. The well-known current
eddy occurs in the conductor, whereas its counterpart, the postulated potential vortex,
forms in the bad-conducting medium, with preference in the dielectric. The duality of both
vortices is expressed by the fact that the electric conductivity of the medium decides
whether current eddies or potential vortices can form and how fast they decay, i.e. convert
their energy into heat.
3.6 Vortex and anti-vortex
Fig. 3.5 shows that vortex and dual anti-vortex mutually cause each other. In high tension
transmission lines we find a striking example for the combination of current eddy and
potential vortex. Within the conductor current eddies are formed. Thus the current density
increases towards the surface of the conductor (skin effect). Outside of the conductor, in
the air, the alternating fields find a very bad conducting medium. If one follows the text
book opinion, then the field outside the conductor should be an irrotational gradient field!
But this statement causes unsolvable problems.
When vortices occur inside the conductor, then for reasons of a detachment of the vortices
without jumps at the interface to the dielectric, also the fields in the air surrounding the
conductor must have the form and the properties of vortices. Nothing would be more
obvious as to also mathematically describe and interpret these so-called gradient fields as
vortex fields. When looking exact this argument even is mandatory!
The as laws of field refraction known boundary conditions
steadiness at the interface of the conductor to the dielectric and don't leave us any other
choice. If there is a vortex field on one side, then also the field on the other side is a vortex
field, otherwise we offend against the law! Here an obvious failure of the Maxwell theory
is present.
Outside the conductor, in the air, where the alternating fields find a very bad conducting
medium the potential vortex not only exists theoretical; it even shows itself. Dependent
among others on the frequency and the composition of the surface of the conductor, the
potenial vortices form around the conductor. When the thereby induced potentials exceed
the initial voltage, then impact ionisation takes place and the well-known corona
discharge is produced. Everyone of us can hear this as crackling and see the sparkling
skin with which high tension transmission lines cover themselves.
In accordance with the text books also a gradient field increases towards the surface of the
conductor, but an even shining would be expected and not a crackling. Without potential
vortices the observable structure of the corona would remain an unsolved phenomenon of
physics (Fig. 3.6).
But even without knowing the structure-shaping property of the potential vortices, that in
addition acts supporting and that we'll have to derive, it can be observed well that
especially roughness on the surface of the conductor stimulate the formation of vortices
and can produce vortices. If one is looking for a reason why with large frequency the very
short impulses of discharge always emerge from roughness
potential vortices are responsible for it. By means of a Kirlian photograph it can be
shown that the corona consists of structured separate discharges (Fig. 3.6).
With this the approach is motivated, formulated and given reasons for. The expositions
can't replace a proof, but they should stand a critical examination. Mathematical and
physical evidence will be furnished later.
No comments:
Post a Comment