Subject: RE: Electrostatic
Field lines and Magnetic field lines Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:33:03 -0600
Dear Guy,
The concept of "field
lines" originally came from Faraday, who visualized the "field" as
basically a set of taut strings under tension. He visualized the
perturbation of the field as "plucking" these strings. Hence the notion
of the "transverse EM wave" in the "medium" consisting of those "taut
strings" -- those field lines. Maxwell simply lifted the notion from
Faraday, since he set about to basically mathematized Faraday's
approach. For some situations the lines became tubes, etc. It's really
just a way to visualize and represent something; it is not an "absolute"
at all.
For simple situations,
the field lines are perpendicular to the surfaces because the tangent of
the surface is at right angles to the "radiation" of the field lines
from a central source. In more complicated situations, in the "lines"
model the lines are not necessarily perpendicular to the surface. E.g.,
where there is a nonlinear geometrical distribution of the internal
sources, and where those sources are both negative and positive in the
case of electrical sources, or both north and south poles in terms of
magnetism.
The real problem with
all of that is that it perpetuates the myth that the local spacetime is
flat. It isn't. Whenever there is a field present in space, the energy
density of that spacetime is changed by the field energy; hence the
spacetime is curved a priori. As Wheeler says, "Mass (actually
mass-energy) acts on spacetime to curve it, and curvature of spacetime
acts on mass-energy to move it or change it.) This mutual interaction
is missing in classical EM theory. Further, the local vacuum also is
polarized and altered by the field. So for a "poor man's" cut at a full
appreciation, I use the notion of the "supersystem", consisting of three
parts: (1) the system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and
its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their
dynamics. All three components of the supersystem interact upon each
other.
Classical EM theory
kills the other two components -- which is simply killing the active
environment of the system. In short, the Lorentz symmetry regauging of
the Maxwell-Heaviside equations arbitrarily discards any NET exchange of
work or energy between the system and its environment (the other two
components).
Since any COP>1.0 EM
system must be an open system far from disequilibrium with its
environment, and freely receiving and using energy from that
environment, then the Lorentz condition arbitrarily discarded all such
systems by assuming a net equilibrium with the active environment.
That regauging made
the equations much simpler (of course! It threw away the more
complicated Maxwellian systems!), but it also selected only those
Maxwellian systems which are in equilibrium and doomed to exhibit
COP<1.0.
Put another way,
Lorentz unwittingly selected that class of Maxwellian systems that
rigorously obey classical equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous
second law. He arbitrarily discarded that class of Maxwellian systems
that permissibly violate classical equilibrium thermodynamics, and
comply with the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium with
their active environment. These latter systems are permitted (by the
laws of physics and nonequilibrium thermodynamics), to perform five
"magic" functions: (1) self-organize or self-order, which is actually an
application of gauge freedom and the ability to freely change their
potential energy, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more
energy than the operator himself arranges to input (the excess energy
input is freely received from the external active environment via the
broken symmetry), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the
energy is freely received from the external active environment via the
broken symmetry, and (5) exhibit negentropy.
It is well-known,
e.g., that the entropy of a system decreases when the system is in
disequilibrium with its active environment, because equilibrium is the
condition of maximum entropy. Indeed, the entropy of a system far from
disequilibrium cannot even be calculated.
As you can see, the
overwhelming majority of objections to COP>1.0 EM systems are simply
naïve, and based on the older classical equilibrium thermodynamics which
does not even apply.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Dear Tom
Your works on the new electromagnetism are doing us dreaming. Soon we will wake up in a better world.
For you or AIAS, what means the "field lines" in electrostatics or in magnetism.
Why this
lines are always perpendicular to the surface they reach or they go out
?
Best
regards
Guy |