Talk:Displacement current/Archive 2

message: A radio transmitter aerial and receiver aerial form a capacitor arrangement:
_______||__________
Catt is right at http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm to point out that Maxwell ignored the flow of light speed energy along the plate connected to a charge. He is wrong to ignore my statement to him, based on Feynman's heuristic quantum mechanics and my fairly deep mechanistic knowledge of radio from experimenting with it myself instead of reading equations and theories from armchair experts in books (I read the books after experimenting, and found a lot of ignorance).
Radio transmitter aerial: |
Radio receiver aerial: |
Transmitter aerial and receiver aerial arranged for strong reception: ||
Transmitter aerial and receiver aerial arranged for zero reception: --
Transmitter and receiver aerial in a more usual situation (receiver picking up a much weaker than transmitted field): |….. |
Hence, a radio link is a capacitor, with radio waves the ‘displacement current’. This is the simplest theory which fits the experimental facts of radio! It was Prevost in 1792 who discovered that if a cooling object is also receiving energy in equilibrium, you don’t measure a temperature fall.
:I dont understand the significance of the last statement about Prevost-- can you expand on it please?--Light current 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what, pray, would be the capacitance between the two aerials if spaced say 500 miles apart?. And what would be the capacitive reactance between the aerials? And therefore what loss would there be between the 2 aerials ? (in dB).--Light current 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Displacement' current in radio transmission 

message: :Please note the best version of the Catt 1978 article, which has the diagrams, is:
http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm
Quantum field theory QFT is the mathematical unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics to deal with electron spin (which is circular motion, with acceleration that is not strictly a valid application of special relativity, which only deals with uniform, non-acceleration situations right).  QFT contains difficulties like the need for renormalisation to limit the integral of interactions of the electron core and the polarised vacuum surrounding it.  Some of these problems come from special relativity, which has only 2 postulates and is a flat earth theory, since the more complete theory is general relativity has 3 postulates, the last of which is basically interpreted as the existence of a spacetime fabric.  I've analysed the atom as a capacitor using Catt's stuff in Electronics World, August 2002, and gravity using Catt's spacetime fabric and the big bang in Electronics World April 2003.  Summaries of the material are on my site now at http://feynman137.tripod.com/ and blog http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ .  I've had long discussions with Catt at his home in St Albans, but he wants nothing to do with quantum field theory.  Basically, he has been suppressed by mainstream journals and just wants to get his own back by calling them crackpots, which is backfires and makes him look eccentric/paranoid to the media.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/11/14/our-first-guest-blogger-lawrence-krauss/:
The whole basis of the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle is going to be causal (random interactions between the gauge boson radiation, which constitutes the spacetime fabric).
Heuristic explanations of the QFT are required to further the basic understanding of modern physics. For example, Heisenberg’s minimum uncertainty (based on impossible gamma ray microscope thought experiment): pd >= h/(2Pi), where p is uncertainty in momentum and d is uncertainty in distance. The product pd is physically equivalent to Et, where E is uncertainty in energy and t is uncertainty in time. Since, for light speed, d = ct, we obtain: d = hc/(2Pi.E). This is the formula the experts generally use to relate the range of the force, d, to the energy of the gauge boson, E. Notice that both d and E are really uncertainties in distance and energy, rather than real distance and energy, but the formula works for real distance and energy, because we are dealing with a definite ratio between the two. Hence for 80 GeV mass-energy W and Z intermediate vector bosons, the force range is on the order of 10^-17 m. Since the formula d = hc/(2.Pi.E) therefore works for d and E as realities, we can introduce work energy as E = Fd, which gives us the strong nuclear force law: F = hc/(2p d^2). This inverse-square law is 137 times Coulomb’s law of electromagnetism.
The heuristic explanation of this 137 anomaly is just the shielding factor by the polarised vacuum:
‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.
The muon is 1.5 units on this scale but this is heuristically explained by a coupling of the core (mass 1) with a virtual particle, just as the electron couples increasing its magnetic moment to about 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137). The mass increase of a muon is 1 + 1/2 because Pi is due to spin and the 137 shielding factor doesn’t apply to bare particles cores in proximity, as it is due to the polarised vacuum veil at longer ranges. This is why unification of forces is approached with higher energy interactions, which penetrate the veil.
This idea predicts that a particle core with n fundamental particles (n=1 for leptons, n = 2 for mesons, and obviously n=3 for baryons) coupling to N virtual vacuum particles (N is an integer) will have an associative inertial mass of Higgs bosons of:
(0.511 Mev).(137/2)n(N + 1) = 35n(N + 1) Mev, 
where 0.511 Mev is the electron mass. Thus we get everything from this one mass plus integers 1,2,3 etc, with a mechanism. We test this below against data for mass of muon and all ‘long-lived’ hadrons. ... more at http://feynman137.tripod.com/ ... best wishes. Nigel
::Nigal said:  "Quantum field theory QFT is the mathematical unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics to deal with electron spin...".  Dirac dealt with SR and the spin of the electron with the Dirac equation.  The development of Quantum field theory was required to deal with the creation and destruction of particles.
::Nigal said:  "Some of these problems come from special relativity, which has only 2 postulates and is a flat earth theory...".  A Flat earth theory? Alfred Centauri 14:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a common error to state that SR does not apply to accelerated motion.  GR is a theory of gravity where gravitation is a manifestation of curved spacetime.  In GR, acceleration is relative.  However, accelerated motion in flat spacetime does not require GR - SR alone is adequate.  Alfred Centauri 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Mr Nigel Cook? 

message: Can I stick my oar in and suggest that this section might be better titled "Controversies", or something similar? There are several represented directly on this discussion page.
To start with, Maxwell's choice of the name "displacement current" is a problem, particularly since he was thinking of an  "ether", which has since been rejected by "mainstream physics", but which still has adherents (some of whom are professors of physics!) Furthermore, Einstein derived Special Relativity directly from Maxwell's Equations (and the derivation of the speed of light in particular) and, of course, there are still "relativity deniers" out there.
I suspect that Catt had/has problems understanding the concept of "electron drift" as the explanation of current flow. There is certainly a reference in his writing that suggests this, and Nigel Cook, who echos a lot of Catt's ideas, has repeatedly tried to prove that current flow is due to a "TEM wave" by asserting that the kinetic energy of the conduction electron mass moving at the electron drift velocity is far too small. It's hard to tell which came first, but I'm pretty sure that the "correct" description of displacement current is inimical to Catt's TEM waves. In the 1980's Catt produced several articles trying to break the mathematics of Maxwell's Equations. This one Maxwell's Equations Revisited from 1980 establishes Catt's level of competence in calculus. He was still linking to it in 2004 The new Scholsticism - (Follow the link to "theory of flight" and try to read the last paragraph without laughing....)
Returning to this page...  relegate Catt to the end of the section as a "notable recent doubter" - the current placing really over-states his relevance. -- Kevin Brunt 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to move things, Kevin. No one owns this page. Be our guest!.--Light current 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read some of Catt's articles, and it seems to me the entire crux of his argument is that the behavior of real capacitors is more complex than the ideal capacitor model that is used in analyzing circuits consisting of lumped elements.  To me, that is kind of like saying that Newton's laws of motion are incorrect in light of special relativity.  That is true, but if you are trying to analyze the trajectory of a baseball as it leaves the bat and sails over the Green Monster, it is generally fine to use Newton's laws instead of relativity.  Technically, Newton's laws give the wrong answer, but at the very low speeds involved, the difference is so incredibly small that it is more than insignificant.  Catt's arguments only apply at very high frequencies or for capacitors of very large physical dimensions.  -- Metacomet 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes , I agree.--Light current 23:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, even if you accept his argument, which is to say that if you treat the capacitor as a transmission line, which is driven by wires connected to the center of the plates with EM waves that propagate outward to the edges of the plates, don't you still need the displacement current to explain what happens to the real current once it reaches the edge?  In other words, hasn't he simply moved the problem from the center of the plates to the edge of the plates?  Once the current reaches the edge of the top plate, how does it get to the bottom plate?  Wouldn't you have to say that it is Maxwell's displacement current that allows the current to flow form the edge of the top plate to the edge of the bottom plate? -- Metacomet 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, no . If you treat the problem as one of em enrgy travelling from center to periphery then reflecting, no transverse current is required!.--Light current 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it is possible to construct an argument regarding inductors that is virtually identical to Catt's argument with respect to capacitors, and in so doing, demonstrate that the B field is completely unnecessary.  After all, an inductor is really just a short circuit, so how indeed is it possible for an inductor to support a voltage across its terminals?  In fact, couldn't you simply argue that an inductor is nothing more than a transmission line (think of a hollow cylindrical tube of highly conductive metal with a conductor attached at each end)?  So maybe we should simply dispense with the time rate of change of the magnetic flux density... -- Metacomet 05:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: An inductor is a transmission line according to Catt et al. If that means you dispense with dB/dt, then so be it!--Light current 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies