For most of my life, I only knew two electromagnetic fields existed: the magnetic and electric fields. Educational websites, instructional videos, and guides for do-it-yourself demonstrations of these forces abound. The typical explanation provided is simple: a moving electron produces a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field produces an electric field. There are few nuances that are also typically included, such as the nature of capacitors (including discussion of dielectrics) and ferromagnetic materials (which contain domains). Dig a little deeper and you might even stumble upon discussion of displacement current in capacitors or superconductivity. However, over all, everything is pretty mundane as if mainstream science had figured out everything and there were little no unexplored *fundamental* corners of reality to exploit. Faster computer chips due to advanced lithography, enhanced metamaterials with unique properties, extremely precise genetic manipulation technologies like CRISPR. But nothing that could lead to a interstellar space faring civilization.
The internet is vast, however. And sometimes after researching (armchair style for the most part) and reading about exotic concepts -- hoping there is something truly significant to be discovered -- you come across a fascinating concept that drives you to learn more. As you spend several sleepless nights scanning through articles and papers, an awareness starts to form that you are truly onto something. I've came across such a topic: the physical reality verses mathematical construct of the MAGNETIC VECTOR POTENTIAL.
I have a bunch of links I'll drop in at some point, but here is a less than completely detailed and truncated version of what I've learned -- along with connections to exotic propulsion and energy technologies.
A long time ago around 1900 or before, Maxwell and many other physicists were seemingly convinced that an aether permeated the universe. When it came to the relationship between the aether and electromagnetism, the magnetic vector potential (A) was king. This force was considered to be the driver of magnetism (B) and the electric field (E). The name back then and today is a horrible misnomer, because there is nothing potential about this field. According to Maxwell, at least early on, this was the source of momentum (movement of the aether) that gave rise to the magnetic and electric fields.
Fast forward to after 1900 and you will see that the aether falls out of style and the simultaneously the magnetic vector potential becomes pretty much neglected. Physicists start considering it as nothing more than a mathematical construct to help in their equations but with little to no physical reality -- despite experiments to the contrary. With some hold outs, this philosophy continues forward eventually allowing for physics to become more convoluted and filled with non-nonsensical theories that are ever increasingly complex. Instead of incorporating the magnetic vector potential and scalar potentials as real physical entities and coming up with an elegant, rational Grand Unified Theory, we end up with quantum mechanics and other wild concepts that produce intuitive situations. A friend of mine is actually a PhD physicist that worked for years at a prestigious lab. During his entire education, his physics professors would tell the classes: don't over think quantum physics because it will drive you crazy. Just do the math and apply it when you need to. So rather than go back to the roots of electromagnetic theory, many mainstream physicists are willing to create math to fit ever increasingly ridiculous theories.
However, even in the last few decades, a number of experiments have been done that prove the physical reality of the vector potential. There are several of these, but the simplest experiments to explain are the ones that confine the B field in toroid or reduce it dramatically with a very long solenoid. Some go even further and use a superconductor as a barrier for the B field. So after an area with zero (or as close to zero as possible) of B field is established, the A field in that area is detected by one of multiple methods. For example, pulsing current through the primary (the toroid) to get current in a secondary "loop" where only A field should exist OR shooting electrons through a similar zone to measure their deflection. These tests prove that this non-physical mathematical construct (or so physicists have claimed for so long) is indeed every bit as "real" as the B and E field. Many physicists still tend to ignore this fact and a few may even dismiss the idea, but the evidence is overwhelming. Now, many nuances of the A field may not be totally agreed upon, but the fact it can produce physical effect is empirically proven.
After my study of this topic, the reason the A field may be the prime driver of electromagnetism (not quite so sure how the scalar potential fits in) is simple. A current running through a wire produces a magnetic vector potential around it and in the direction of the moving current. The curl of this A field then becomes the B field. Moreover, the relative change of the A field is responsible for electromagnetic induction. Wait, that doesn't sound right, doesn't it? Yep, typically a changing B field is said to produce an electric field (E) which is claimed to be responsible. However, in reality, the A field and E fields are basically the same thing. Moreover, as I said previously, the A field can induce an electric current in a secondary even when the B field is contained in a well made toroid.
Basically, the A field seems to be the prime driver of electromagnetism. So how does this relate to the topic of this forum?
My interest in exotic propulsion started with the Biefield Brown Effect. I won't go into all the details because they are easy to be found online, and I highly suggest that anyone who is interested do a complete reading of the three lab notebooks that have been published. The Biefield Brown Effect is simply the production of a physical force or thrust when an adequate high voltage is applied to a capacitor. This effect can be enhanced by utilizing asymmetric arrangement of electrodes, using a material with a very high dielectric constant or "k" value, increasing the area of the electrodes, or obviously boosting the voltage to very high levels.
Instantly, there will be people on this forum who will shout: The effect doesn't work in vacuum! It's all ionic wind! That's all there is so let's not revisit this topic!
I'm not convinced of that for multiple reasons. Some papers written of tests done in vacuum show zero thrust and others do show thrust. Additionally, many tests have been performed in conditions that would rule out the ionic wind effect: for example under oil or with geometries that would mostly nullify the electric wind effect. And, of course, I have more controversial reasons as well. I'm not sure of the rules of this forum yet so I don't know what topics I can dive into. But I'm convinced there are craft already existing that use this effect.
What's so interesting to me is that the Bifield Brown Effect and the EM Drive (along with some other devices for reactionless thrust) all have so much in common: they function as asymmetrical capacitors that store energy, they perform best when pulsed (Townsend Brown used pulsed DC and the EM Drive uses microwaves), and they produce thrust that cannot otherwise be explained. Most importantly, they both concentrate electric field lines which are really vectors of MAGNETIC VECTOR POTENTIAL.
I recognize there are some differences: the EM Drive can be tested in different "modes" with different geometric field patterns so that in some cases the electric fields are not lined up from one end of the device to the other. But I don't think this is huge issue: magnetic and electric fields are composed of the same "stuff" that makes up the magnetic vector potential. Somehow, by manipulating this "stuff" which I personally think is likely to be electron-positron pairs (check out the papers of Don Hotson on the Electron Positron Sea), these devices can manipulate one or more forces to produce thrust.
Which forces are they manipulating? My study of the aether by a number of different researchers going from Maxwell to Tesla to Puthoff to Hotson to others leads me to believe the electron-positron sea all around us is responsible for all the physical forces and constants: gravity, inertia, mass, the light speed limit, and maybe even the decay rates of nuclei. So, in my opinion, these devices could be influencing multiple of these forces at once. By one mechanism they might be manipulating gravity by pushing against the aether with a flow of electron positron pairs. Likewise, by producing a gradient of field lines they might be manipulating inertia. At this time, I don't think we know enough to tell exactly what's happening and which forces are being manipulated to produce thrust. But the possibilities are fascinating to consider. Especially with the EM Drive, with the different modes of operation in which the fields can change positions, a number of different devices could be constructed that might effect one force to a much greater degree than another.
However, if our understanding of electromagnetics is severely dumbed down, gimped, or incomplete, we won't be able to effectively design these various asymmetrical capacitors or "aether manipulators" to perform at 100%. If we truly embraced the reality of the magnetic vector potential and scalar potentials, I think these systems would be engineered much more rapidly. Just imagine a world in which we could engineer all these forces to make a spaceship have less inertial mass, move it in any direction we desire without internal inertial forces, defy gravity, or manipulate the aether to allow for faster than light travel. We would be able to explore not only our solar system but expand outwards to other solar systems. The problem is, in my opinion, that without an understanding of the vector potential as a real force progress will be impeded dramatically. Because if we don't even consider two of the four forces (in reality I think we need a new view of all these forces to perhaps condense them down and simplify them) to be capable of interacting with matter, then how can we hope to obtain a full understanding of these devices?
I think that Ben Rich was being totally honest when he stated multiple times to several different individuals (in a couple cases groups of individuals) that we already have technology -- locked away in black projects -- that can take us to the stars. Why do I think this is the case? One reason, of several, is that the military could have been utilizing the concept of the aether, the magnetic vector potential, and the Biefield Brown effect for many decades. While the mainstream conjectured wilder theories, they could have been actually building working devices that were engineering gravity and inertia.
So where do we go from here and what's the purpose of this thread?
1) Discuss the reality of the vector potential.
2) Discuss how the vector potential could be engineered to manipulate physical forces.
3) Discuss how the vector potential is being used to produce thrust in the EM Drive and other devices.
Let's talk.
Physicists start considering it as nothing more than a mathematical construct to help in their equations but with little to no physical reality -- despite experiments to the contrary.
This is the point in your post where you seem to have been either confused or completely mislead. There are no experiments that support your statement.
The magnetic vector potential is something that cannot be physically measured by definition. To illustrate the point, lets start with the electric potential. The electric potential as defined from basic electrodynamics has an undefined offset. You can add any constant value to it without changing the physical meaning. This is because it only has physical meaning in that the electric field is the gradient of this potential. The magnetic vector potential is similar, is is originally defined such that the curl of the potential is the magnetic field. This allows a similar ambiguity because you can add in any vector function with zero curl and it will have no effect. This effectively allows you to pick an arbitrary divergence of the magnetic vector potential. This arbitrariness is why the potentials are non-physical. You cannot measure an absolute value for either of them. The only physical thing present is the electric and magnetic fields themselves. The closest thing to measuring either of them is for the electric potential, where you can measure the difference in value between 2 points. Only its difference can be measured, and that is because only its difference has physical meaning.
When you get deeper into electrodynamics, it turns out that due to coupling between the electric and magnetic fields (a changing electric field produces a magnetic field and vice versa) electric field is actually a function of both the electric and magnetic potentials. To make the math easier, physicists like to make use of that arbitrariness I mentioned earlier in what is known as a gauge transformation, where they change the how they pick the arbitrary part of the magnetic vector potential. No one way of picking this is any more right than any other, so the actual values of the magnetic potential do not matter, and there is nothing physical that they can be taken to represent.
Also, you go on to complain about how complicated and confusing quantum mechanics is. Contrary to your assertion, physicists like simple, elegant theories. The problem is that classical electrodynamics simply does not correctly predict things like electron orbitals. The discrete levels available are easy to determine from things like emission spectra, and chemical bond angles and related properties confirm orbital shapes. Quantum underlies more of modern technology than you realize. the transistors that make your computer work can only be designing using concepts from quantum mechanics, and your suggestion to just ignore quantum mechanics is a suggestion to simply ignore reality.
First, I would strongly advise you look into some math rigorous physics courses. "Researching" advanced concepts without a background in physics will not give any of your arguments much credit. However, I do applaud your curiosity. I was very much the same way ... then I studied physics in college and my understanding and ability to relate the concepts you have described with the physics concepts I've learned has only deepened my appreciation for the science.
Second, the aether concept relied on there being a physical medium that permeated throughout all of space. This was disproven by the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment. That is not to say there isn't something else that is able to permeate throughout all of space and that is where the quantum vacuum concept is introduced. If you read Dr. White's paper about his explanation of how thrust in produced in the EM drive, he mentions the virtual particles that come in and out of existence due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Indeed, all of these ideas have been proven. This is exactly what you suggested about the electron-positron sea. Already, some of your ideas are well proven in physics so I suggest you do a simple literature search for these topics to broaden your understanding.
The idea of an aether can be replaced by the quantum vacuum, which is the "medium" in which the EM drive operates in. Like I said earlier, it would be beneficial for you to take calculus based physics courses so you're able to understand how physicists arrive at these conclusions. Study into quantum field theory is what is required to truly grasp the concepts in this sub-field of physics, which is considered graduate level physics.
Third, I would be interested to look at the sources you claim disprove some of the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. I've done some searches myself but have come up short. I would also caution you when reading any paper and ask questions such as: what motivation do the researchers have to publish positive results? was this research funded by an outside source? could the funding source interfere with the published results? can their experimental method be duplicated? are there biases, assumptions that could skew results? etc, etc, etc.
Finally,
Physicists start considering it as nothing more than a mathematical construct to help in their equations but with little to no physical reality -- despite experiments to the contrary.
Be careful about "experiments". It's easy to tweak them to get the "desired" results, you could fluff them however you want. This is why peer review is important and why experimental methods must be able to be replicated.
So ... post some sources, learn some physics, keep learning and having an open mind, be very critical of what you read and the EM drive can be explained through quantum field theory. In my opinion, you don't need the magnetic vector potential or the aether.
It is interesting you mention the A field being outside where the magnetic field is very small. Actually the B field outside a long solenoid does have a presence though very small with respect to what is inside so it does exist outside the long solenoid also or toroid. This is because the magnetic field is actually the electric field + relativity. It appears to be physics way of simplifying taking into account the non-relativistic electric field and the relativistic electric field.
The relativistic electric field of a magnet is a velocity dependent dipole potential. Basically a moving charge observes negative charge bunching up on one side of the current loop when it is moving with respect to the current loop as a whole (depends on direction and speed).
Such a dipole electric field as a result does have a presence outside a long solenoid as I stated but earlier I was saying magnetic field (they are interchangeable). This presence is very small compared to what is inside.
I have heard about those experiments with the A field and it is interesting. I would like to know more about it. I was contemplating if the EM drive could have an A field outside and if possibly 2 EM drives or 2 cylindrical cavities could interact as a phased array in one of my much earlier posts. I have been here a while. Here is the link:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.0 I am not entirely convinced a reversed magnetic phased array would not have some interesting effects but I have yet the fortune to test this idea. One of these days hopefully.
I have also harped on the e-p pair vacuum and I think there is some thing there. It has to be related to the quantum vacuum.
But to emphasize the Energy being of the factor energy=E^2+B^2 with some constants suggests the energy in the electric field (E) must include the relativistic (B) as well as the non-relativistic electric field (E) which physics uses the B field to describe this relativistic behavior of the electric field. Its a matter of simplification.
I was inspired a lot by Richard Feynman's work and Edward Purcell's book "Electricity and Magnetism" if your interested.
Hi
I recently checked out an online paper that discussed this concept. It started with a discussion of the history of Maxwell's equations and their rewriting by other physicists, plus some concepts that could be fruitfully explored for new physical insights. That was quite intriguing and is a worthwhile research topic, so well worth exploring further. The vector representation vs using quaternions and Clifford algebra is an active bit of mathematical physics - preprints pop up on the arXiv fairly regularly.
However the author lost me when he claimed electron and proton beams don't have a magnetic field. By that point I knew he was a crank with no experimental experience. Magnetic self-focusing of electron beams has been studied & used for years in plasma physics. That, and other slips, indicated he had introduced contradictions into his theory - and a contradiction can be used to 'prove' anything.
Hi
I recently checked out an online paper that discussed this concept. It started with a discussion of the history of Maxwell's equations and their rewriting by other physicists, plus some concepts that could be fruitfully explored for new physical insights. That was quite intriguing and is a worthwhile research topic, so well worth exploring further. The vector representation vs using quaternions and Clifford algebra is an active bit of mathematical physics - preprints pop up on the arXiv fairly regularly.
However the author lost me when he claimed electron and proton beams don't have a magnetic field. By that point I knew he was a crank with no experimental experience. Magnetic self-focusing of electron beams has been studied & used for years in plasma physics. That, and other slips, indicated he had introduced contradictions into his theory - and a contradiction can be used to 'prove' anything.
One must be careful and specify the surroundings of such an electron beam. That is if it is passing through vacuum or a plasma gas or through some other medium.
I found quite a few studies of electron beams in plasma gas and it appear to be because such electron beams can be created in plasma gas with lasers. There is also self focusing of light in a medium which is a different matter.
Behavior of Intense Relativistic Electron Beams by Richard H. CappsOne article I found above, behind a pay-wall, but having a nice intro suggest some self focusing effects of an electron beam due to radiation. Such radiation should be emitted away from the center of the beam and one could imagine some repulsive effects via that.
To know if such an electron beam has its own magnetic field in vacuum I would want to see an experiment where the electron beam is in a vacuum.
I might imagine such a relativistic electron beam in vacuum could possibly be decelerated by relativistic effects and if so the deceleration of such an electron beam would generate an electric field pointing in the direction of deceleration. The light would radiate perpendicular to the acceleration. The radiation would suggest a change in a magnetic field which would suggest such a beam does indeed have a magnetic field. Such attributes might be attributed to some interaction of the electron beam with the vacuum such that deceleration occurs causing radiation, causing self focusing. One might wonder if such deceleration might have an effect on the vacuum, accelerating it.
This is all hypothetical, considering such a self focusing effect in vacuum for a highly relativistic electron beam even exists. There might be papers out there already having studied such beams in a vacuum that I missed. There is also a relativistic increase in mass or slowing down in time which would slow electron mutual repulsion.
It's an interesting topic.
I'm convinced of the reality of the Vector Potential A from my own research but I'm unconvinced of the utility for the use of propulsion. I found a much simpler link between electrodynamics and gravitodynamics simply by using the mass of charged particles (or a system of two or more massless uncharged particles like photons) and using that in the regime of weak linearized gravity where the equations are similar in form to Maxwell's equations. I'm convinced, after studying Emdrive for a few years, after ruling out everything else (and it was a lot), that it's working by gravitational induction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1553207#msg1553207
Hi,
The EM drive is made up of a condenser, a resistor, and a vacuum tube, and it is not assembled with mathematical expressions. Maxwell committed a big mistake when Maxwell reworked Faraday's experiments into mathematical formulas. It thought that electric flux lines would neutralize. Maxwell adapted the image that heat conveys to electric lines of force.
BTW, matter consists of protons, electrons and neutrons. Neutrons are protons and electrons.Therefore, the substance is made up of protons and electrons. Proton, electrons may not have mass.Something that is perceived as mass creates something, so it may seem that there is mass.
Think about only electrons. When a force is applied to an electron, a magnetic field is generated in the rear. Changes in the magnetic field produce an electric field. The electric field attracts electrons in the opposite direction to the force applied to the electrons. In other words, applying force to electrons generates electromagnetic waves, which creates resistance. The same thing happens with protons. Resistance is generated in the direction opposite to the applied force when viewed from the whole substance. The generated electromagnetic wave is canceled out by protons and electrons and it does not come out.
Is this resistance similar to mass? If electromagnetic waves are applied to stationary electrons, force will probably work on electrons.If a positive electric field hits the electrons, electrons are pulled back and move. The negative is reversed.If there are many negative electric fields by chance, the entire substance will be drawn in the direction in which the electromagnetic wave came.
Is this an EM drive?
Hi,
The EM drive is made up of a condenser, a resistor, and a vacuum tube, and it is not assembled with mathematical expressions. Maxwell committed a big mistake when Maxwell reworked Faraday's experiments into mathematical formulas. It thought that electric flux lines would neutralize. Maxwell adapted the image that heat conveys to electric lines of force.
BTW, matter consists of protons, electrons and neutrons. Neutrons are protons and electrons.Therefore, the substance is made up of protons and electrons. Proton, electrons may not have mass.Something that is perceived as mass creates something, so it may seem that there is mass.
Think about only electrons. When a force is applied to an electron, a magnetic field is generated in the rear. Changes in the magnetic field produce an electric field. The electric field attracts electrons in the opposite direction to the force applied to the electrons. In other words, applying force to electrons generates electromagnetic waves, which creates resistance. The same thing happens with protons. Resistance is generated in the direction opposite to the applied force when viewed from the whole substance. The generated electromagnetic wave is canceled out by protons and electrons and it does not come out.
Is this resistance similar to mass? If electromagnetic waves are applied to stationary electrons, force will probably work on electrons.If a positive electric field hits the electrons, electrons are pulled back and move. The negative is reversed.If there are many negative electric fields by chance, the entire substance will be drawn in the direction in which the electromagnetic wave came.
Is this an EM drive?
1. Neutrons are NOT made of protons and electrons. Neutrons are made of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks. Protons are 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.
When neutrons decay, they become a proton and produce an electron. One of the neutron's down quarks changes into an up quark, and it emits an electron and an anti-neutrino. Important: the electron and anti-neutrino weren't there before. They were created when the decay reaction took place.
2. Protons and electrons do have mass.