Real Physics Talk: André Koch Assis - Mysteries of Electrodynamics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 окт 2023
- Homepage of Prof. André Koch Assis: www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/
First Real Physics Talk with André Koch Assis: • Real Physics Talk: And...
02:00 Our meeting in Prague in 2019
02:40 Studying physics and history of science
03:30 Ampere never wrote the circuital law
05:38 Ampere never worked with the magnetic field concept
07:20 Oersted’s experiment of 1820
09:00 Ampere’s main assumptions
10:07 Interaction between two current carrying wires
13:05 Ampere’s central force between two current elements
16:00 Ampere’s force disappeared from the textbooks
16:50 Maxwell on Ampere
17:15 Grassmann's formula
17:20 Grassmann’s force between two current elements
19:05 Ampere’s bridge experiment and longitudinal forces
23:00 Possible experimental tests
23:35 Graneau’s experiments to distinguish Ampere from Grassmann
25:00 Are Maxwell's equations correct?
26:05 Maxwell’s comparison between Ampere and Grassmann
28:10 Weber's Electrodynamics - related to Ampere?
28:49 English translations of the works of Coulomb, Ampere and Weber
29:25 English translations of Coulomb, Ampere and Weber
31:40 Opposite paradigms: field theory vs direct interaction
35:00 Weber and Ampere
37:40 Unification of od ED with optics
40:00 Kohlrausch and Weber measurements
41:25 History of the wave equation
43:00 Is Weber's law compatible with energy conservation?
43:40 Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin versus Weber. The aether
45:45 Weber's Complete works translated into English
47:30 Intuitive meaning of Weber's electrodynamics
49:20 Precession of electrons in the atomic orbit?
51:00 Weber's force for pairs of electrons
53:45 A possible explanation of nuclear forces?
55:30 A forgotten gem of Weber
58:10 Calculating the size of the nucleus?
1:01:30 How to make progress in fundamental physics
1:05:30 wave/fields vs direct interaction/particles
1:06:30 Weber vs Lorentz: is there an experiment?
Second Talk (Mach's principle) : • Real Physics Talk: And...
Nature paper on tests of Ampere's law:
P. Graneau. Electromagnetic jet-propulsion in the direction of
current flow. Nature, 295:311-312, 1982.
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ 
Наука
Thank you for hosting this amazing guest!!!!!
Fascinating. I like all your videos but this has been the best. The openness of your guest (and Maxwell) is in the best traditions of science. I like the comparative insight of knowledge derived from experiment versus theory and I know Maxwell and Faraday had conversations about this. It is the same today and I sometimes wonder if mathematics has subsumed physics and possibly obscured further discoveries about the way in which our world really works.
Absolutely fascinating interview showing us the significance of the historical perspective on science.
Tive o grande prazer de conhecer o professor Assis, figura impar.
Alexander that was a brilliant interview I have a few suggestions, 1, allow your interviewees a little more 'room', with such dense information it's important to allow the viewer to absorb a sufficient amount so as to keep pace. 2, in your follow-up videos, which I am very much looking forward to, please draw a connection to the predictions of schwinger re the schwinger limit/ threshold
This was incredibly interesting, beyond my expectations. I also liked the conversational style a lot. Thanks for this content!!
I enjoyed the " telephone conversation " format. It reminds me of the excitement I have when bringing new and / or interesting ideas ( normally by telephone ) to my friends. It reminds me to share the information / presentation. Thank you for providing more food for thought I look forward to your next video.
Prof. Assis's enthusiasm is contagious.
Delighted to hear the history of physics represented
Now this is more like the shop talk I want to hear! The interuptions do add turbulence to the flow of the conversation but I want to thank Dr. Unzicker for trying to make sure he understands the point of view being expressed and for not letting Dr. Assis gallop too far ahead as one tries to adjust to thinking within a different paradigm. This is the mark of a good learner and a skeptic.
Just found this video. Thank you for this. I await your next video. The third in this series! Thank you for teaching me.
that was wonderful...and like magic ampere's.... 23 degrees is also near angle of earth's axis of rotational precession...an axis of rotational equilibrium.....with an electromagnetic explanation/connection
.....
The magic and irony of the web…I am only at 100km away from Prof. Assis…and only today I’ve heard, for the first time, his name!!
Simply brilliant science disclosures…
Very good music for my old ears…I’ll dive in the essence…
P.S.: There are a series of articles and letters, in Wireless Word 1976-1980 (if not mistaken…) by Ivor Catt and another gentleman, related to the Displacement Current mainly. If I remember Catt claimed to have discovered a flaw on poor Max Eqns….
For the good researcher and lover of EM it is very fun to follow all the articles and letters exchanged on the subject….
Parabéns Prof. André!!
That was extremely interesting, especially the part about equal charges turning attractive at very close distances in Weber, and the part about the lost equation from Ampere with parallel currents in series being repulsive. The lack of fields in Weber made me think about the Aharonov-Bohm effect and wonder if the vector and scalar potentials fit in with Weber, and nonlocality in Coulomb gauge. Definitely bring him back and let the man speak!
Dr. UnZicker, I’m delighted with you doing interviews, but you have to stop interrupting, it is never necessary.
Just two Suggestions:
Give them full camera, scratch down notes for questions or clarifications an ask them *after* your guest pauses.
The sounds of agreement you often make, perhaps out of force of habit, work well one on one of course, but they are detrimental to your listening audience, each sound obscures something your guest has said.
I must concur fully. Thanks to the professor for an otherwise excellent presentation.
These are not native English-speakers, moreover they are talking to one another with a poor quality audio-video connection (and they are not super-young either). It's very natural to assure the speaker one is fully understanding what he is saying. It would be nice if zoom could record separately the audio inputs of participants allowing for post-production, but that's not the case yet.
Thank you for bringing this back to the public. Finally, nuclear physics and chemistry make sense to me. Something that no particle physicist and string theorist has been able to do.
Strings are hot tho.
@@EugenethePhilostopher more math than physics
better look into quantino theory
@@aaronkimmig1 I love quantino. "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" was a bit boring though.
It may be that when gravitations and electric try to attract but repel, then unexpectedly things could go wrong. A wild spring action that could get out of hand. An uneducated guess by the way. 😊
This has to be the best physics talk I have ever heard. So, before the reification of conceptual and mathematical errors, someone had the right idea and made predictions that experiment went on to proved. If you can build a planetary model of the atom with the right radius for the nucleus without any needs for fields, then you have in fact laid the groundwork for a TOE that is experimental not mathematical. Watching Alexander do what humans are wired to do, reject an end to the mysteries that sustain us, made me smile.
The big problem with modern science is that textbooks page counts and lecture schedules are limiting so older things are left out or relegated to foot notes and hyperlinks that students never have time to read. If you know these things and raise them you often get a response from the lecturer: "You're right but we don't have time for that now." This translates "I personally never read the reference either and I'm scared that I'll get it wrong." I got a high distinction out of one of those conversations.
It's men like these who will be regarded as the greats in the future. Keep challenging the orthodox. Blessings!
Thales drew a connection between magnets and electricity (he observed the similarity of the phenomenon of electrostatics in amber attracting threads and natural magnets attracting nails) some twenty-four centuries before Ampere.
It's important to have good audio, please consider having your guests invest in a microphone to improve the quality of the audio to more easily spread the information
It is a hidden treasures, a gift past century to foundation of fundamental. Not only painful it also shameful next generation with all scientific education system couldn't capture this truth. Members of scientific community from respective country also lost their past happily.
Can String theory produce these old experiments at least unable to leveling with their previous generation SM .
Thank you for a brilliant presentation.
Absolutely amazing
49:49 "The most important thing is when you have two charges of the same sign..." [...] "It's a radial acceleration" [...] "When they are very close to each other they behave as if they have negative natural mass. Instead of repelling on another they would attract one another"[...] "It's exactly because of the acceleration component."
Can you guys meet again and explore -more specifically - the reasoning for why weber's force law leads to attraction in the nucleus? This is very unclear to me currently as well as the most important and possible valuable part of this conversation.
I will give you a summary here. Newton's 2nd Law states the Net Force = m * a. If the only force between particles is the Weber Force Law (which has an acceleration term), then both the left (LHS) and right hand side (RHS) of the equation have an acceleration term. If you algebraically move the acceleration term on the LHS to the RHS, the result is a new equation: Effective Net Force = Effective Mass * a. The effective mass can become negative if and only if two charges of like sign get within a specific distance from each other (the critical distance Assis mentioned).
Because the so called distance corresponds to the nuclei radius
Thanks for the video. Obrigado!
Thank you for giving Prof Koch a platform to bring this up. Can you put a link to the equation Weber came up with that predicts the size of the nucleus?
www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Weber-planetary-model-of-the-atom-20-02-2020.pdf
I find it fascinating that Charles Proteus Steinmetz , resolved most of these Electrodynamic issues by necessity in creating the first transmission structures . In my humble opinion the Greatest mind in electrodynamics and mathematics in the 20th century . Even humbling Einstein .
I think it's also worth noting that it was Oliver Heaviside who made the greatest strides practically , refining an engineerable form and simplifying Maxwells equations .
I very much enjoyed this and I agree with your need for light discussion. The field theories are not physics. They are math. There are no pulls. Fields NEED pulls. A deep dive on the separate topics would also be enjoyable.
BTW: C is only a constant as a ratio in an ether field of density and speed.
Aether is not a continuum nor a gas. It is very small uncharged particles in space. F= M * A is all you need applied to Trillions of these tiny particles interacting with nucleons and ALL problems can be solved.
Also...electrons do not exist. They are ether flows.
Charges do not exist.
Thank you!
It is a valuable contribution to Physics that people will be able to read the works of Coulomb, Ampere and Weber in English. Coulomb's Law was readily accepted, it being so like Newton's Law of Gravity. Magetism leaves one working to try and develop a physical understanding; I have read that there is an inverse-cube law of attraction/repulsion with magnetism.
I think Professor Assis would agree that the magnetic field around a current-carrying wire doesn't spiral. A compass needle can show equipotentials. Also, as I have asked of Dr Unzicker in a comment for another video, Is the magnetic field from the charge of the electrons in the wire, or from their momenta? Or, somehow from charge and momentum?
Long after the times under discussion, it was discovered that particle properties are non-local. Each electron in the wire has an infinite distribution but the charge is neutralised by the protons in the wire. I don't see what could neutralise the momenta of the electrons. So, may we consider that the magnetic field is from the momenta? One can reasonably consider a working assumption that momenta of electrons in the wire and those of domains in the compass needle tend to align, giving the notional lines, from domain axes, which may be drawn around such a wire in a diagram.
The extra terms introduced by Webe, for speed and for acceleration, need a lot of consideration and much was only learned later about the basis for Coulomb's Law, about electrons, positrons, protons and other particles. I have to ask if electrons have speed in a conductor that varies with voltage, or does the number of electrons in the flow vary,- or both? Considering acceleration, when a current is interrupted, that would cause acceleration and a back-emf tends to form. Is that from a reversal of an invisible flow in the space, the aether, the transmission medium?
When 2 circulating charges approach one another, there is acceleration. Later, as they separate, there is a recovery towards the initial conditions; there is no loss to the transmission medium, apparently. Halfway, where their motions are parallel, there could be a reduction in the force between them compared to when they approach; but nucleons have a more complicated description so Weber's formula may not suggest stongly what became known about nuclei. Electron orbitals and atomic bonds have accelerations that may relate to Weber's term for acceleration but activation energies suggest that bonding can require orbitals to overlap, with bonding possibly depending on repulsion and spin interactions.
It was very interesting to be thinking about such matters and one is reminded of how there is much championing of the contributions of some while contributions of others are forgotten.
Webbers self attraction distance also shows up in fusion tunneling calculations and its used by some in explaining some fusion reactions independent of nuclear force theories.
Very interesting indeed.
This is the amperes longitudinal forces problem. Its why we wind wires around each other, Why rail guns break themselves and were replaced with coil guns. I have Graneau’s book. Graneau gave the experiment to students. They got the opposite results to the main stream predictions. The Graneau’s the got dozens of people doing the tests. RUclips video's and all. The problem was simple the early tests got positive results but lacked sensitivity so the scientists said it needs to be tried later. This was miss translated to Grassmann and Maxwell as a failure to detect. Hence Grassman's equation. The error remains in spite of thousands now doing the test in public and inventing new tests. Longitudinal Ampere forces are really messing up plasma fusion attempts.
Recently when AI was asked to fix plasma fusion it compensated for the force with extra field twists. Humans has already predicted this but were ignored. It has triggered a huge fight.
A part of the discussion reminds me of the book ''The Nature of the Atom: An Introduction to the Structured Atom Model by J.E. Kaal, J.A. Sorensen, et al.; September 2021''. Very interesting.
A question to professor André Koch.
Could Weber Electrodynamics explain the quantizing nature of spin in the Stern-Gerlach experiment?
In order for iron fillings to form their lines around a magnet in as close to perfect vacuum as possible on earth or in space, implies that those lines around the magnet Exist in/as the vacuum, even when the iron fillings are not present?
So what are these vacuum lines?
What are the ways to investigate these vacuum field lines, called the electromagnetic field?
You can bring a charge near and see it move; you can move a charge and see the lines move; but how to further investigate the materia existence of these lines?
Is there something to this idea of charge being the source of field lines, like a man can hold a rope, an electron is holding field lines,
Field lines are real, electrons are real, electrons are attached to field lines, all field lines have begginings and endings in the bodies of charges.
Make 100 dots on paper, then connect them with lines, something like this?
The dots have physical properties, the lines have physical properties, actions and interactions result in interactions and actions.
Different amounts and different proximities of charges, accelerated different ways, makes the field lines interact and move in different ways,
The field lines moving and interacting, of being in closer or further proximity, results in different quantities and qualities of light.
What is the minimum possible acceleration of a charge that produces the most minimum possible amount of EM radiation?
How many field lines are attached to each charge?
What are field lines made of, what is their substance, what are the quantum quanta and qualitia of field lines?
What is in-between field lines, why are they the distance apart they are?
What happens when they are trapped and increasingly compressed?
If the line is a physical thing, how do the lines not get all twisted and tangled?
How are all charges connected to these lines, how are the lines stuck to the charges, how are all charges in the universe connected to lines that unbrokenly span the dimensions of the universe?
When we see light from stars, charges from those stars, are shaking the field lines they are attached to, and those field lines are attached to charges in our eye/brain which shake in a way related to how the charge in the distant star shook?
22:00 This part, this design its common knowlage, experiment shown to anyone in 6th grade, 42:00 Just change textboks, Ampere, Kirchoff, Weber, Siemens are mentioned in every book i had to learn from. Maybe because - i live close to Germany? Also missing in British books is - Oliver Heaviside, British electrician, who in 1886 - he took 20 of Maxwel's equations and simplified to practical form. Also he invented inductance, reluctance, capitance. Invented coaxilal cable, he discovered "skin effect" experiment Andre have mentioned of wires being torn apart if high current flows. Are part of his work. Maxwell contributed a lot to the science, actually first time i heard about Maxwell, wasn't in electrical school. So long time ago i dont remember. Maxwell to me is everything related to light and termodynamics. Maxwell daemon - entropy pump, heat pump, everyone got in home in form of refrigerator device with efficiency of 300%. Nothing to do with electromagnetism..
Maxwell and Lorentz proponents of aether, to my understanding "theory of relativity" is actually technically the same thing, just aether was magically removed of our sight, only photon kept, all math kept, all relations as previously as if everything moving object was made of particle, that cant move faster than light. Like if you apply Doopler effect when you float on the water but your boat is made of water. This is only "thing" allows Einstein's theory to work at small distances.Thanks to electromagnetism - there is strong bond to rest of matter surrounding. Wont work at high distance, it's conta intuitive. Im not physicist. But i find calling "theory of relativity" a relativity just absurd. And showing aether as "alternative" one of most absurd "jokes" in scientific field. To me it's like phyics stuck in XIXc, but im not "scientists".
20:40 fwd I've been looking for an explanation of this Ampere experiment for years, after reading an article in Science et Vie, which my poor grasp of French prevented me from understanding clearly. And just as he starts to describe it you cut him off!!! Gads! I must say your interviewing methods leave something to be desired!
At least I got the name of the experiment: Ampere's hairpin experiment on a longitudinal component of emf
Please take a look at AKT Assis' book (www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Amperes-Electrodynamics.pdf) starting on page 144. Assis goes through Ampere's bridge experiment, and it has been translated into english.
Toward the end of his life I recommended that Tom Phipps read Assis's work. Here's what he sent me:
Dear James,
I bought the book. It is a masterpiece, right up there with Newton's Principia. It is also as big as the Chicago telephone book.
Best, Tom
I hope you follow up with further investigations and deeper examinations of the concepts Dr. Assis is revealing. I cannot fault you for reserving them for a deeper consideration, but the losses of these concepts from the canon seems like some of the missing links that leave us wondering about the current predicaments and diminishing returns on investment.
I’d love to see the math for using Weber’s equations to calculate the value that Andre mentions is the size of a nuclei.
www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Weber-planetary-model-of-the-atom-20-02-2020.pdf
Wow, you made me subscribe to this channel. Do you know Robert Distinti? He is on RUclips and Patreon. You don't need a million Volts to do experiments in order to disprove maxwell's equations, a 3D printer and electronics is enough! Also he is doing fundamental research on the basic principles, and the formulas look a lot like Weber's - but Distinti found out that even the vector calculus of mathematics has it's flaws so he even had to devise a new matrix algebra. I can not enough recommend him when talking about fundamental electromagnetics
A rich conversation.
The Electromagnetic Field is a medium that is a stationary form in the presence of stationary charge,
And is s disturbed, moving, vibrating, waving medium in the presence of accelerated charge.
The nature of the accelerating charge directly relates to the nature of the type of wave of the electromagnetic field.
The idea of wave packets comes about, in the sense that, if you were to drop a marble into water, or tap a metal pole with a spoon, or hit a drum once with a stick, the associatied waves in each scenario would be hard to produce 1 single pure quanta of wave each time.
Hitting a metal pole with a metal spoon once, does not create a single wave, or a single particle, it creates a spatio temporal event, or packet, of waves, which are, the local motion of relatively uniform particles touching each other.
Light is obviously something, a charge is obviously moved by a magnentic field.
But while it is somewhat comprehended what neutron, proton, electron is, and how they work,
What is the apparent invisible, yet the only thing visible, substantial field medium surrounding all protons, neutrons and electrons?
Also in those other material medium cases, i think the waves have a set rate of propagation, like light, is that true, that no matter how heavy a metal spoon no matter how hard or soft you hit the metal, the waves propagate away from contact at an exact fixed speed? As well as sound in the air medium, and water waves in a water medium?
Aether equations (units: c=1):
( E0 ≡ ) ∂[A0]/∂t = - 𝛁⋅𝐀 ( Aether conservation ; Lorenz gauge condition )
( 𝐄 ≡ ) ∂𝐀/∂t = - 𝛁[A0] - 𝛁×𝝷 ( Rectilinear acceleration density of aether )
( 𝐁 ≡ ) ∂𝝷/∂t = - 𝛁[θ0] + 𝛁×𝐀 ( Angular velocity density of aether )
( B0 ≡ ) ∂[θ0]/∂t = - 𝛁⋅𝝷 ( Aether twist conservation )
(A0, 𝐀): Rectilinear four-velocity density of aether.
(θ0, 𝝷): Oriented four-angle density of aether.
A0 is the aether density. The aether twist density θ0 is the time-component of the oriented four-angle density. The Lorenz gauge condition is actually a physical constraint (aether conservation). The equations above generate Maxwell's equations with sources. I leave it as an exercise. Notice that E0 and B0 generate the electric and magnetic sources, respectively.
Electro-Positronic Field: -ve gas binds a ball of +ve cells freed by Full Escape Energy as electron-positron pairs
+ve/-ve Particles: pull in/pump out then pump out/pull in -ve gas that collides at the centre and spirals out at 90'
Spin: lateral outflow force cancels in all directions but motion increases -ve gas intake, biasing spin at 90' to travel
Magnetism: spin flows straight to a neighbour. Energy conservation and field balance preservation cause external circuits
Mass: inward -ve gas flow acceleration drags spheres of cells further apart inwardly but closer laterally to a packed core
Gravity: like mass but slower acceleration with drag on field cells cancelled by dark energy so cells remain equidistant
Dark Energy: more -ve gas near mass shrinks field, expanded by less in voids + new matter creation / black hole growth
Heavy Force: mass multiplier mechanism pulls in field before annihilating all heavy composite particle cores but protons
Heavy Fusion: in the Big Bang (and stars?) 2 positrons oppositely hit 1 electron (more than 2 electrons hit 1 positron)
Proton: (pep) 3 core particles heavily fused. The 2 half neutralised positrons repel each other preventing annihilation
Neutron: (pep_e). Beta- radiation loses the electron, beta+ is a new positron expelled and electron retained by a proton
Positronium: (e_p) 0 core particles, muon (ep_e) 2 core, tau (epep_e) 4 core. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau
Antimatter: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate, 3 make a muon or proton+anti muon/proton, 4 a neutron+anti neutron, 5 a tau+anti tau
Lifespan: (anti) muons/taus at close to electric force speed (C) barely feel it but Heavy Force takes over when they slow
Nuclear Force: neutron electrons bond to protons. Mass and magnetism compacts and strengthens the nucleus
Black Hole: converts all matter to heavy force e+p crystal with a slowly annihilating centre, preventing a singularity
Photon: compressed, concentrated -ve gas wave core pulls in field cells as it passes. Field warps diffract and interfere
2 Slit Experiment: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides
Entanglement: field physically links objects but there could be hidden variables (ie. absolute temporal synchronisation)
Looking at Weber's force law we can see that the force becomes zero when the distance between charges satisfy a certain non-linear differential equation. That equation does not depend neither on the charges nor masses but only on the constant c. I have problem with this fact, at least for now. The radial acceleration should be zero and the radial velocity should be equal to sqrt{2}*c. So if the charges move on the same line with this constant velocity, towards one another or moving away one from another, they do not interact. OK. the speed is larger than c, but I think that Weber did not care about the special relativity, which was unknown to him anyway.
I've wondered if any study of galaxies showing whispy edges on one side have been compared in terms of orientation with others. After all, perhaps it will indicate something directional.
My mind is tickled by thoughts of Townsend Brown's experiments with asymmetrical capacitors that broke Newton's "Laws".
Does science still kneel before the empirical evidence?
(Townsend Brown showed his working model to his friend Admiral Rickover, who told him to cease and desist. Apparently the US Navy was not interested in anti-gravity. This happened in 1957)
My opinion is that E and B are real since E^2+B^2 is the electromagnetic energy density, i.e. pressure. What hurts you if you fall from the balcony? The pressure gradient. It's real. Try writing the pressure gradient in terms of charge density and current density. In the extended Maxwell's equations, a scalar field S and pseudoscalar field P are also included, which are related to charges and currents (in principle both electric and magnetic). Then, S^2+P^2 is the energy density of matter. These extra fields are also related to zitterbewegung, i.e. they lead to an anti-symmetric component to the energy-momentum tensor. For example, the energy density flux gets extra terms PE+QB and the momentum density the extra terms -PE-QB. Furthermore, the stress tensor gets quite complicated. A final point: As long as we are interested in Hamiltonians and Lagrangians (i.e. symmetries and conservation laws), E and B should be considered real.
!!! FARADAY WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL holy shit....
why does everyone forget he told us? Magnetism IS the dielectric field..
i gotta finish that essay, fml
here is a sneakpeak of my paper so far:
The first cornerstone we must establish is reframing the quantum vacuum not as empty space, but as a 2D plane representing the underlying geometric unity beneath spacetime. Mathematically, this can be modeled as a 2-dimensional Poincaré hyperbolic inertial plane, which is a non-Euclidean surface with negative Gaussian curvature-from here on referred to as counterspace. This counterspatial plane serves as an atemporal and non-spatial baseline for scalar potential, with the pre-discharge state being the ground state. However, as a counterspatial construct, it cannot be directly observed through spatial quantum projections. In essence, this plane is a precursor frame lacking dimensionality yet possessing latent geometric order, with the potential represented as a scalar value without fixed directionality or particles.
When the dielectric counterspatial manifold discharges into magnetism, analogous to symmetry breaking, this latent potential gives rise to vector phenomena through self-organization. The underlying scalar potential influences the orientation and geometry of the second key domain - 3D space. Specifically, the disturbed ground state re-establishes an oriented rotational equilibrium guided implicitly by the scalar potential, enabling the emergence of observable 3D geometries. The potential provides an atemporal frame as spatial manifestations unfold, with discontinuities at boundaries leading to excitations emerging from the quantum vacuum state. Therefore, the second manifold domain comes into being in conjunction with the potential plane through magneto-dielectric interplay. Here, interplay refers to the magneto-dielectric fluxes serving as mediators that transduce the latent scalar order into orientational information that structures observable 3D space. Importantly, Euclidean 3D space manifests through this conjugate magneto-dielectric interaction, not as a simple projection. The dynamic interplay between magnetism and dielectricity actively manifests 3D space from the vacuum potential.
sounds remarkably similar XD
@@maeton-gaming Interesting. I like the works "Unified Field Theory And Occam's Razor: Simple Solutions To Deep Questions" and "A new linear theory of light and matter". Same extended Maxwell's equations in both cases, but in terms of describing particles I think the former work is more practical (it contains an approximation) and the latter more exact.
ah but you've touched on exactly the reason I'm writing my essay / paper as a first principled logical thought experiment. I'm loosely titling it "Wave Goodbye to Particles: Re-envisioning the Double Slit Experiment" and I'm going to lay out how both can exist simultaneously: reality can be and have an incommensurable geometric medium underlying all forces and particle interactions that holistically allows both quantum mechanics and relativity to co-exist neatly and perfectly. All that collapsing the wavefunction / measurement does is introduce discontinuities that result in particulate likke observations, here is the best way I could write it formally:
`Quantizing the unified flux into discrete photons that self-interfere overlooks its innate continuity. Rather, measurement introduces discontinuities that disruptively partition the holistic flux’s coherence. Vanishing which-path information does not extrinsically erase or create quanta, but allows intrinsic unity to manifest through the geometry as spatial magnetism and dielectric voidance get distributed across the circuit. The system exhibits impressed phenomenology statistically manifesting from the underlying flux when subjected to boundaries, not indications of ontological quantization.` :P
@@billytheschmid
thanks for the book recomendations, just bought them now! 1:08:00 alexandyr in this video just said something I've been thinking about with my interpretation and theory!! that orbitals must be geometric constructs made up of the two manifolds! (magnetic and dielectric) and that's why the orbital cloud and layout is geometric in basis and order, at least by first principles!@@billytheschmid
That like charges attract if close enough is a revelation indeed. This explains away the oddly mysterious 'nuclear force'. Nuclear physics is in for a shakeup one would think.
If correct.
sems ampere found linear inertia of current as ed leadscalen i think previously in school isolated this also in shadow effect of radio signal travel distance from tower
1:00:15 My answer (again) positrons, contrary to electrons, are attracted by "strong atomic bond" + electric field repelling these. Electrons always repell each other, dont mate. "strong force is approximately 100 times as strong as electromagnetism, 10^6 times as strong as the weak interaction, and 10^38 times as strong as gravitation"
But two objects of size zero, would never "glue themselfs" Coriolis, electromagnetism would cause to keep balance? Circulating at distance of 10^15. Weber just discovered strong atomic force? Working with electromagnetic fields? And ocassionally smallest quantified "values" or reality fabric? When it comes to protons, neutrons?
It's starting to feel like the electric universe has a lot to say when concentrated -just like crystals -(or a star). Good thoughts keep it up -
THE VOLTAFE REQUIRED FOR EFFECT ALSO FREQUENCY DEPENANT AS MUCH AS RADIO WAVE SPEED IS NOT c
requesting a video similar to this about Planck's second theory and "loading" interpretation.
It seems the zero point energy quantum fluctuation are what creates the nucleus dynamics. The electron cloud could be the ZPE hitting/draging aginst the influence of the nucleus.
Also there is some inserted missconceptions about quarks:
a free neutron will become a proton by ejecting an electron and anti-neutrino
but they say stuff; an down quark turns into an up quark via W-boson interaction.
2 entirely different ways of saying 1 thing is sus
If you took 2 of the strongest possible magnets, and strongest possible mechanical arms to hold them, and bring their like poles together (North to North), what would be happening between the poles?
I just saw that apparently the reason they repulse is because theres no field or force lines inbetween the like sides, so what is preventing you from making N touch N, what is physically occuring in the space between them?
Is it, simply, the electron orbitals on those ends being so full, and crashing into other?
We cant see the electrons flying off the ends, but they do, and they collide and push the magnets apart?
If its not physical electrons hitting physical electrons to repulse 2 magnets, and theres no field lines between them, how is repulsion occuring?
I geuss the idea is then that, there are field lines in some sense, the very real very physical electromagnetic field is formulated into such a dynamic shape at the N pole, that you are pushing 2 invisible cups bottom to bottom, or top to top;
But if 2 cups are alligned the same way, they can fit connectingly together.
22.31
You have to turn the 2 currents. If the current out of one is ant-parallel to the current into the other, there will be repulsion.
I think that the neutrino conversion between electron and positron [ looking at the flashes of light in the big pure water tanks in the mountains against the expected number of neutrino passing through the tank ] is in the ninety seven ( 97 ) percent of the time being positron. { better check that my math is not so good }.
Interesting that 2 wires with current aligned,
[Front ---- Back] [Front ---- Back] Repulse
While magnets
[North --- South] [North ---- South] attract
Depends on how the experiment was set up. Resistivity and it's effects were at it's infancy and Ampere might have drawn the wrong conclusion overall in these cases.
"We are just two physicists outside the mainstream, but I think it's definitely clear contemporary physics has lost it's track, I guess."
"As a sideline, I also believe that...or everybody knows that nuclear physics is not very well understood and you have no first principles explanation for such things of the nuclear force."
I think a few points would improve this format substantially: ask questions instead of having a discussion/debate, only interrupt if the guest needs to stop talking, and allow them to take all the time they need every time. Think Rogan. You can always edit answers and add comments after.
Here is an excellent presentation by Professor Assis: ruclips.net/video/o05-0M8Stkg/видео.html
And what if Ampere's original measurements were wrong or partly explained? The two conductors with a current in the same direction repelling each other being dependent on resistivity creating an electric field for example.
This has been tried and failed to show an effect with superconducting wires.
wave dynamics stopped being taught as aether theory collapsed seems 1890's BEFORE 1905 OUTLAWED CONSIDERATION
Also birkeland
Ampere conducted all this without knowing anything about electron and it's magnetism. Electrons are negatively charged tiny magnets. The truth about outer magnetic field is magnetism is not produced by the flow of current but by the magnetic positioning of the electrons and protons. Our goal is allways exactness! No need of current inside a permanent magnet. In super conductivity there can be current flowing inside a body, there also not the flow makes the magnetic field. While moving, every electron can only have same position, tiny fields accumulate to create a total magnetic field.
Neat
Did he say magnetic field lines have precession?
59:00 Henri Poincaré Nothing controversial here!? When proton gets "destroyed" in nucleus, bombarded what is left is neutron, positron, and neutrino. When positron meet electron both dissapear (magically) generates gamma rays both directions almost like black holes and it's jets. When two positrons are pushed against each other? Every two or more "objects" attracted to each other. Specially size near zero. Will never fall on top of another and stop moving. But rather circulate. So happned orbit is precisely equal to size of protons and neutrons.10^-15 No surprise there i suppose? Same mass, same force. Same distance. Electron is smaller 10^-30 most proabably is not attracted by strong atomic bond, this is why you wont see two electrons "dancing". Electrons always work alone.
I don't know... I don't see anything "controversial" - Googled that. It means same as previously written - there is atomic bond different from electrical field. One is repelling two charges same +, strong force keep falling together in spiral dance.
Poincare 1905 claimed that matter is build of 3 dimensional waves, like bubbles pressure, electron is just interference of two standing waves. I don't know details but their understanding is bit different than Newton's and Shrodinger's. In way of understanding reality - planetary system. Fact that two objects wont collapse but keep spinning and since all are same sizez will keep spinning same distance... Doesn't surprise me?
It';s most intuitive way of presenting "things". Im not physicists..
So Magnets work via their charges interacting with the ElectroMagnetic Field
Current is the movement of Charges,
The movement of charges generates/produces/propagates electromagnetic radiation/light
Which is the electromagnetic field made to move by the moving charges.
The moving charges in a wire, current, alters the surrounding electromagnetic field,
The electromagnetic field can be altered in the way of; being light/radiation by being made to move by a moved charge;
But it is not 'electromagnetic radiation/light' that is called by the warping of the field surrounding a currented wire, but, a particular magnetic field.
Then, it would be one thing if it had mainly to do with the charges in the air molecules and the pressure of atmosphere and gravity, creating an atomic, quantum, physical understanding of the all encompassing and pervading 'field', that of the local charge filled reacting to local current event, warps around the wire, which further influences any magnets entered into that area.
But if it is true that the immediate space surrounding magnets is still so warped in so atomless and materialess outerspace in any closest to possible true vacuum, if magnet still reacts to a magnet at distance what is going on in empty space between them?
!!! You are so close yet the absolute quantum insanity of particle reification prevents you from seeing the unlit-truth right before your eyes! Its the voidance of space ;) If you threw a ball up in the air, at its apex, when it started returning along its trajectory back, why WOULDN'T you call it a negative throw??
its for that same reason, an electron should be considered a unit of dielectric induction as per JJ Thompson and not reified into a DISCRETE, REAL PARTICLE. MADNESS.
In the proposed alternate view, magnets do not strictly operate via discrete charges interacting with a standalone field. Rather, magnetism and the dielectric represent two universal manifolds whose interplay constitutes electromagnetism.
Current involves a flow of magnetism, which in turn disturbs the dielectric inertia of the surrounding space. This magneto-dielectric disturbance propagates outward at the speed of light as electromagnetic radiation.
So it is not a "warping" of a separate field, but disturbances in the universal equilibrium between magnetism and dielectricity that manifest electromagnetic phenomena. The field is not a distinct entity being warped.
Importantly, this magneto-dielectric flux equilibrium permeates all space universally, not just air molecules. So magnetic interactions can occur even in seeming vacuums between astronomical bodies, because the cosmic flux unity remains omnipresent.
Discrete charges and conventional fields are epiphenomena arising from disturbances in this flux unity. At the fundamental level, the dynamism between the magnetic and dielectric manifolds explains electromagnetic interactions across distance and even in seeming voids. No external medium is necessary. What is reified as "magnetic attraction" is nothing more than dielectric mutual mass acceleration -- the field coherency of magnets brought into close alignment means when N and S are close enough, a new lower-manifold pressure region now exists inbetween the two, and instead of the spatial vectors of magnetism, they experience the accelerative vectors of dielectric inertia, or the countervoidance of space. IT SEEKS TO ERASE SPACE BECAUSE ITS THE COUNTER-SPACE OR COUNTER MANIFOLD TO EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY. Thats "why" there's no magnetism at the center of a magnet, and "why" the two poles of a magnet have inverse spin directions (one Clockwise, the other counterclockwise)
This framework can also account for relativistic effects without contradicting Einstein's theories:
- Magneto-dielectric interplay voids space between interacting fluxes. As space deflates, the apparent contraction and time dilation effects of relativity would emerge.
- Acceleration and gravity could manifest through coherence or gradients in the universal flux equilibrium rather than spacetime curvature.
Light's speed limit naturally arises from the proposed flux propagation rate, rather than requiring absolute spacetime.
- Magnetism spiraling into dielectric voids provides inertia that resists acceleration, removing the need to posit disconnected inertial and gravitational masses.
- The universality of the magneto-dielectric medium negates the need for absolute motion frames. Motion is relative flux equilibrium perturbations.
So the key relativistic effects like time dilation, length contraction, Reference frame invariance, and the speed of light emerge intrinsically from the proposed magneto-dielectric flux unity. This means the empirical predictions of relativity can be accounted for without contradicting Einstein, by providing an expanded ontological framework.
In summary, this framework posits magnetism and dielectricity as universal co-principles, rather than standalone fields being warped. Their interplay constitutes electromagnetism and remains present everywhere throughout space. Magnetism and current involve flux interactions at this fundamental level.
No need for positron, nuclei or all the other ghosts people are hunting. Just energy. Imagine the shape of an hour glass and each container of sand has the shape of the Electron/charge and in the waist is where they meet and create attraction(what we call gravity). Add more energy and the element gets higher in the periodic table. Lost energy radiates out and charge other atoms in an endless cycle.
Electromagnetic induction, we have a rotating field.
Take the Foucault pendulum, made of none magnetic material, Copper .brass. never steel or iron. Why?
All materials used are affected by the rotating field through induction.
There is a > 0 similarity between wondering:
how does the Nucleus keep the electron from being let go swung out of orbit?
and
How does the Sun keep the Earth from being let go swung out of orbit?
How does a particular body, grab another, or interact with a __________ to maintain another body in its orbit?
The Nucleus warps the local electromagnetic field in such a way the electron can not help but be contained in this spatial shape.
The Sun warps the solar system gravity field in such a way the Earth cannot help but be contained in this spatial shape.
I am not implying or considering any extrapolations or jumping to conclusions, just starting at asking for possible clarification or discussion
It seems as if the electron may travel around the nucleus, thousands thousands times a second or something?
So something that can be said in relation is, the nature of the electrons orbit is on a much smaller scale, and many times more in short time.
It's interesting if you look at images of atoms, I am not even sure in those images where the electron is, or what state of blur or actuality it is captured in?
It is incredible this system of to great degrees of tightness and looseness the electron wraps around this and that nucleus, the electron and nucleus, strongly and softly bonds to all those degrees to give you water to metal.
And so some how some reason, the atoms and molecules of earth formed and stuck together quite remarkably, in quite a sphere, how much and strong rock is to begin with, all these nuclei attracted some what to each other, however many electrons were around, zapped itself together, strongly as the world, with epic stormy center, up to the lightness of grass and mud and water and air.
So now what is keeping the electrons near the nucleuses, and the nucleuses near each other;
Because as repellent as electrons are to each other, and nuclei to each other, they do all packed in materials sit quite close to one another.
So what is making the electron unable to sit still in an orbit, could an electron just float in free vacuum space?
Is it always zipping and zapping and flying around at high speeds intrinsically, or is everything kind of rattling around because of Earths turbulant travel through space, there are a million microvibrations everywhere Earth's atoms are packed in, as Earth, vibrates traveling through space and it's spinning revolving orbits
But earth being strongly stuck together requires the electron system to be large scale working already, a gigantic gynormus ball of quidrillion quidrillion nucealus and electrons stacked on top one another, up to the water and air where things get more loose, but still space electron nucleus space electron space nucleus space electron space nucleus space electron space nucleus space electron space nucleus x 99999999999999
1:03:31 The real physics doesn't need “axioms”.
Unzicker, you need to know when to be silent and stop interrupting; if you don't want to learn maybe we do.
Agree. So frustrating
I understand what you're saying, but i think he's trying to follow his plan to cover certain things and do it in a way that bigger variety of people can follow.(maybe impossible in this format) That's really hard to do. Plus if you're hearing certain things, you try to process and incorporate it with your existing knowledge/paradigm. Some people are more verbal than others and how do you incorporate that while have a public interview/discussion. If he wasn't somewhat opinionated and determined/stubborn he would not have made it this far. I'm glad he's doing this even with interruptions ;)
@@kabbakI agree with you. Dr. Unzicker is trying to make sure that he understands what is being said and that his audience also can understand it without being too technical. Dr. Unzicker is trying to make sure things are clear and he is trying to learn the view being expressed and how it compares with the traditional paradigm. The art of interviewing someone is not easy. Dr. Unzicker is putting in the effort and trying to keep an open mind.
Check out his lectures on Electric Universe UK & other interviews on Demystifying Science.
Absolutely, he interrupts so much in the first talk with his guest that it became irritating and hard to follow. I almost stopped listening.
Nature paper on tests of Ampere's law:
Hey, why don´t you let him talk!?
It's interesting to note that the question of longitudinal ampere forces was put to Einstein in the 1950's. According to the Graneas. He checked. It has no effect on any of his relativity work because it self cancels.
Too many interruptions, let your guests finish their sentences.
I enjoyed the interview but Dr. Unzicker did seem a little impatient or rushed.
I am a true master genius because I am not confined to the box, we call the "demiurge", the flat earth reality Matrice of lexicon limiting data interpret.
You invite for interview a professor of electrodynamics - and then keep shutting him down for being too technical. If you want an easy armchair chat, perhaps electrodynamics isn't the best choice of topic.
This is to create motivation. If you wnt to go deeper, you have to delve into the papers anyway.
Unzicker, I watch this because I study physics as a hobby. I thoroughly enjoy it. It’s annoying for folks to constantly dumb down concepts and avoid technical conversations. I doubt I’m alone here-I want the full picture always.
Also, is it a German thing to constantly say “mmhmm” after every 4 words someone says? Let the man speak.
Im German myself and I’m a big fan I mean no offense. However, your audio is louder than his and as he speaks I can barely follow as you “mmmhm” every 3 seconds.
Thx for the hint, I'll try to improve.
It’s too technical to explain this simple bridge experiment? It’s absolutely not-it’s an intuitive process. why on earth do you keep policing this man’s speech? Do you feel you’re the only one who can conceptualist electrodynamics? Why have a talk at all? 🤦♂️