"Electromagnetic waves" do NOT EXIST!!!

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by martillo

First of all I don't suggest an error in Maxwell's equations, I propose that the conclusion of the existency of the electromagnetic waves which start from Maxwell's equations is wrong. This is very different.
…
You haven't presented any rationat refutation to my demonstration that "electromagnetic waves" do not exist.

My apologies, but I have never personally derived the electromagnetic wave equation from either the modern 4 or historical 8 Maxwell’s equations. Rather, I’ve simply accepted the assertion found in many textbooks and encyclopedias, such as the wikipedia article “Maxwell’s equations”’s:

Maxwell used the equations to show that light is an electromagnetic wave.

I’ll make an effort to, but expect this will take me at least several days. Until then, martillo, I won’t be able to address your specific claim.

Originally Posted by martillo

Second, you are deviating the scope of this thread, which is to discuss the existency of the electromagnetic waves, to a discussion if light velocity is constant or not. This is not my intention and may be you woud like to open a new thread for this.

Again, my apologies. I was attempting to proceed directly to the alternative offered in 8.1 THE EMISSION THEORY, of your “A New Light in Physics”, which I found more conventional and easier to discuss, rather than 7.1 ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES DO NOT EXIST, which I found unconventional and confusing.

However, I believe the claim “electromagnetic waves do not exist” can be restated “light is not an electromagnetic wave”. If this is further restated to “light is not wavelike”, a wealth of relevant, easy to understand experimental data is available for discussion, leading ultimately to modern demonstrations of wave-particle duality, which I think are very relevant to the your claims.

Martillo, is your goal to write a theory based on an alternative to Maxwell’s equations that makes exactly the same predictions as classical electromagnetism? Or are you seeking to make different experimental predictions? If so, what? If you intend neither of these goals, what do you intend?

[ronthepon]

Originally Posted by martillo

ronthepon and jay-qu:


I don't need to make this. A linear differential equation of second order can have only two solutions. If you try other sistems of coordinates you will get the same solutions expressed in the new systems of coordinates. The natural system for a plane is the carthesian system (x,y,z), in a polar system the results appear much more complicated.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't write it explicitly.

Since you're not striking out the other dimensions, as in writing:
You won't get a plane wave. Having not neglected the x and y dimensions, you won't get the same result. Doing it in radial will actually make the 3-D analysis more simple.

Is this rational enough yet?

[modest]

Originally Posted by martillo

CraigD:
First of all I don't suggest an error in Maxwell's equations, I propose that the conclusion of the existency of the electromagnetic waves which start from Maxwell's equations is wrong. This is very different.

So you're saying maxwell's equations work. It would be impossible to make the claim that they don't describe what is observed in the classical limit - so what is your point?

I assume you'd rather describe everything with photon particles. But, what would be the point of that? It is possible for the ocean to both be made of water particles and have waves. The waves are real - they exist - it is very useful to consider them.

-modest

[martillo]

CraigD:
Those suggestions for a different title in the thread seem fine but this thread considers not only light but any kind of radiation in the "electromagnetic spectrum" including radio-waves (AM, FM, TV, etc) X-rays, Y-rays and even heat-radiation.

Martillo, is your goal to write a theory based on an alternative to Maxwell’s equations that makes exactly the same predictions as classical electromagnetism? Or are you seeking to make different experimental predictions? If so, what? If you intend neither of these goals, what do you intend?

No, not at all, I'm not against Maxwell's equations. I sustain the particles' approach that any kind of "electromagnetic radiation" is a photons' radiation and hs nothing to do with waves.
Maxwell's equations are fine, just the deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" is what I consider wrong, for me they cannot exist and this is what I present in my page.

Wht I intend? I think it is to recover the old particles' approach for light and any kind of "electromagnetic radiation" presenting a totally new model for the elementary particles which describe very well all known Physics' experiments, the particles' model ones and the "wave-like" behaviors ones, determining that the "wave-particle duality" proposition is not a right "theory", that in reality there are no such waves but only particles.

I don't have new predictions for the new "model", I didn't have time for this and I still don't have time for it now but I don't discard that in the future new predictions could come as the theory would be developed further (may be with the help of otherones).

[martillo]

Ronthepon:

You won't get a plane wave. Having not neglected the x and y dimensions, you won't get the same result. Doing it in radial will actually make the 3-D analysis more simple.

Is this rational enough yet?

Sorry but the solutions to an equation does not anyway depend on the system of coordinates choosen to solve it. The solution will be the same just expressed in another system of coordinates.

[martillo]

Modest:

So you're saying maxwell's equations work. It would be impossible to make the claim that they don't describe what is observed in the classical limit - so what is your point?

I don't understand why Maxwell's equation are so associated with electromagnetic waves as if they were the same thing.
Maxwell's equations are the set of equations any electric and magnetic field must satisfy. "Electromagnetic waves" existency is just a (wrong) prediction of a possible thing the electric and magnetic fields could produce because in principle the equations allow the existency of such plane waves. What I sustain is that that prediction is wrong because it is impossible to generate such things, I mean there is no possible source for those things, not practical and not theoretical ones.

I assume you'd rather describe everything with photon particles. But, what would be the point of that? It is possible for the ocean to both be made of water particles and have waves. The waves are real - they exist - it is very useful to consider them.

The point is taht is not true, is not real, is not right and I think nobody wants to believe in wrong things mainly because it could leave sooner or later to wrong conclusions.
Isn't this enough for you?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by martillo

The point is taht is not true, is not real, is not right and I think nobody wants to believe in wrong things mainly because it could leave sooner or later to wrong conclusions.
Isn't this enough for you?

No. They've held up extremely well so far, so your handwaving, frankly, is NOT enough. You either need to show something which explains the same things and also works better or shut up.

[Jay-qu]

no they dont, you can choose Cartesian, spherical polar or even cylindrical polar coordinates, but the fact remains you have to consider a 3-dimensional coordinate system. That is the difference, the world is 3-D, the equations must therefore make us of a 3D coordinate system when being solved. This is because there is nothing restricting the waves to travel in any one direction.

[ronthepon]

Originally Posted by martillo

Ronthepon:


Sorry but the solutions to an equation does not anyway depend on the system of coordinates choosen to solve it. The solution will be the same just expressed in another system of coordinates.

Now I think you're just turning your head the other way. I'll break it down to points, then.

• As you, and Jay Qu correctly say, The coordinate systems have nothing to do, whatsoever, with the result. -I officially acnowledge it.
• Deleting two dimensions, however, will change the result.

For the second point, I had written the second post, even brushed up on my latex to have it represented to show the assumption used to bring the plane wave to the picture.
Does this have no effect? Nay, please don't ignore this any further, please tell me how a plane wave shall form when we don't ignore the y and z axes.

(And to do that impossible task, if it were possible, I'd suggest the usage or polar coords, and that's where the polar found it's place in the thread.)

[martillo]

InfiniteNow:

No. They've held up extremely well so far, so your handwaving, frankly, is NOT enough. You either need to show something which explains the same things and also works better or shut up.

Well you can take a look at my site: A New Light In Physics to see how all the "same things" are perfectly explained in other way: light interference, diffraction, refraction, quantum behavior, prediction of subatomic particles, pair creation and annihilation, photoelectric emission and absortion, etc, etc. May be you would like to start with Section 7.3: "Communicating with photons".