Re: Theory acceptance- was Re: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: stork <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hello Matt,

> The three principles laid out have been generally accepted by all branches 
> of mainstream science for almost a century.

As predicted, no source citation.  Just "generally accepted" blah, blah 
blah.  Is this what you tell your students?

 I believe that #2
> is a generalization to all science of Bohr's quantum/classical 
> "correspondence principle" ca 1920. These can be thought of as three 
> screening rules for membership to the "Club of Respected Scientific Theories".

Thank you Matt.  Yet another ill defined generalization ascribed to 
Bohr.  Neils Bohr has become just another foot note in physics history. He 
founded the so called Copenhagen School of quantum mechanics.  An entirely 
statistical approach to QM which eshewed experimental data unless it agreed 
with their statistical approach.  Bohr was a rather boorish lout who 
bullied his colleagues and was detested by the likes of Einstein, 
Shrodinger and Dirac.  The Copenhagen School and its statistical approach 
is a historical dead end and no longer followed in Quantum Mechanics.

> Maxwell's work was vindicated by the fact that millions of radio 
> transmitters and receivers work as predicted, and millions of experiments 
> done in optics and light show results as predicted on the macroscopic scale.

And, the question based on your criteria was.

> Let's see.  Please tell us where to find the hard facts and specific
> procedures for duplication of results in support of the mythical
> "displacement current" in Maxwell's equation.

As usual, you tried to sidestep the question at hand and gave a non 
responsive answer.  So, I'll answer it for you and relate it to this list.

A few years ago Terry tried very hard to design a machine to detect and 
measure "displacement current".  Spent quite some time and band width on 
it.  But, no success.  Then Paul N whispered in his ear, "It can't be 
done."  Terry immediately abandoned his project.

Wow!  What an epiphany!  The linch pin of Maxwell's equations, 
"displacement current", has absolutely no basis of fact in physical 
reality. Displacement current is a huge fudge factor to make the equation 
come out correctly.  QM removes the necessity for a displacement current.

I might add the other Maxwells equations do have experimental proofs.

> I don't remember Feynman trashing Maxwell in his QED lectures. As the Q in 
> QED implies, this explains what happens at the sub-microscopic levels of 
> light/electron interactions.For macroscopic phenomena, they tend to 
> predict the same general behaviors.

General behaviors of what?

As far as I know Feynman did not "trash" Maxwell.  But, he and his graduate 
student and later colleague, Carter Mead, treated Maxwell sympathetically 
and with respect for his great intellect.  They thought Maxwell came very 
close, but missed the mark with his "displacement current".  And, this 
error started electodynamics down the wrong road until present.  Collective 
electrodynamics has the ability to solve the problem and fit neatly into EM.

Over the past 70 years many macroscopic experimental discoveries have been 
made.  Each representing new quantum behavior in coherent collective states 
of matter.  Mead relates the following list.

1933  Persistent Current in a Superconducting Ring
1933  Expulsion of Magnetic Field by Superconductor
1954  Maser
1960  Atomic Laser
1961  Quantitized Flux in Super Conducting Ring
1962  Semiconductor Laser
1964  Superconducting Quantum Interference Device
1980  Integer Quantum Hall Effect
1981  Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
1995  Bose-Einstein Condensate

There are others such as the successful Arahnov Bohm experiments.  These 
discoveries are macrocsopic and are explained by Quantum Mechanical 
effects.  Feel free to explain them with classical EM and let us know how 
you come out.  Also, Paul N may try his hand.

> Galileo did not replace astrology with astronomy. Astrology attempts to 
> predict human behavior and future events based on the apparent positions 
> of astronomical bodies. Astronomy attempts to explain and predict their 
> positions and motions. He did replace the geocentric astronomy with 
> heliocentric astronomy. Some astronomers of his time and after (and quite 
> a few new-age whackos) accepted both astrology and heliocentric astronomy.

You are wrong.  Until Tyco Brah's celestial observations which culminated 
in Galaleo's discoveries, the practice was astrological only.  Astronomy 
had not been invented.  It was all geocentric.  Galaleo's pronouncement of 
a heliocentric science was the beginning of astronomy.
He paid dearly by the naysayers and was forced to recant at the point of a 
sharp sword.  Not to dissimilar to people today who voice new ideas. The 
all knowing citizens simply won't permit it to be even brought up.

> " I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

"Yeah, me too.  I love to skewer half-wits, though."


> Matt
> Who wrote these three edicts?
>  >1) Adequate specific procedures and hard data must be provided to allow
>  >third parties to attempt duplication of any results that purport to
>  >support the theory.
> Let's see.  Please tell us where to find the hard facts and specific
> procedures for duplication of results in support of the mythical
> "displacement current" in Maxwell's equation.
>  >2) The new theory must reduce to the traditional one in all cases where
>  >the traditional explanation is known to hold.
> Yeah, that's exactly what Galileo did when he replaced astrology with his
> heretical new science of astronomy.
>  >3) The new theory must also, in at least one repeatable case, make an
>  >accurate prediction where the traditional theory does not.
> How about Quantum Electrodynamics?  It obviates all field theory in
> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
> stork
>
>
> .