Talk:Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] claims and history

Oh, oh, is it the season for junk science? The article already attempts a carefull formulation ("claims" everywhere), but some improvement is still needed. As no facts can be given for totally unfounded theory, at least some persons and history should be added. --Pjacobi 10:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Ok ... will do (as to the persons and history). J. D. Redding

[edit] mathematical description?

Hmm, this article does involve a lot of hand waving, as typical descriptions of this topic tend to. Is it fair to say that the "scalar fields" are precisely the A and phi potential fields from classical electomagnetics? Infinite different combinations of A and phi related through a gauge transformation

$\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{A} + \nabla f$ and $\phi = \phi - \frac { \partial f } { \partial t }$

for an arbitrary f can produce the exact same E and B fields (including zero fields), so one can assume that A and phi are the more fundamental quantities (see Magnetic potential#Reality of potential fields). Also phi (and whatever function is used in a gauge transformation) are "scalar" (non-vector) which might be where the name comes from. I recall seeing somewhere the equations of a propagating wave (in A and phi) which has zero E and B throughout - I can dig up a reference if anyone's interested. Such a thing would be observable but only because it will periodically shift the phases of any quantum-mechanical wavefunctions (e.g. take the standard experiment showing the Aharonov-Bohm effect and turn the field inside the cylinder on and off). I want to give this article a more rigorous description including some math but I don't want to do any original research such as claiming the "scalar field" is A and phi. Opinions?

Also, while a bifilar antenna (or opposing permanent magnets) would produce a change in A and phi, I'm not sure how it could possibly pick it up. I believe the only way is to use an interferometer (basically looking at a time-variable version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect with a different geometry).

None of this is a new theory though, it is just a rather surprising application of standard electromagnetics and quantum mechanics. ObsidianOrder 09:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for pointing this out, but it is a common misconception that different A/phi (for the same E/B) can be told apart by the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Quite to the opposite the AB phase shift can be expressed in E/B (by Stoke's theorem) so it gives the same phse shift for all members of an A/phi equivalence class.

Pjacobi 09:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is no E or B field where the electrons are regardless of whether the solenoid is on or off, therefore by definition A and phi are in the same equivalence class in the exterior region. So, yes, what the A-B effect can tell apart is between members of a local A/phi equivalence class. I'm aware of the Stokes theorem ;) All it means in the case of the A-B effect is that any surface bounded by the electron trajectories in A-B must cross a region with a nonzero B in order for a phase shift to occur. However, that is only true in the static case. In the more interesting case of a time-varying A/phi, there can be a phase shift even though the integral of B over a surface bounded by the electron paths is exactly zero at any point in time, simply because of the finite propagation velocity of A/phi and nonzero flight time of the electrons. Yes, there still needs to be a real B, but it doesn't even need to be encircled by the trajectories. What you're saying sounds to me basically that in order to have different A/phi within the same local equivalence class in one region, it is necessary for different E/B to exist in another region, so they can't be in the same global equivalence class. That may be so, but it's not especially surprising ;) Even an (idealized) bifilar has a region of nonzero B between the windings which is responsible for producing pure A/phi outside. ObsidianOrder 13:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that I wanted to say, is that the AB effect isn't able to tell apart A/phi which are connected by gauge transformation.

As for your initial questions about "propagating wave" with zero E and B: You can for example choose f to be the solution of wave equation (for any velocity of your liking). Now A/phi look very wavelike. But this doesn't represent any observable phenomenon.

Pjacobi 14:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

"isn't able to tell apart A/phi which are connected by gauge transformation" - Well, it is able to tell apart A/phi which are connected by gauge transformation almost everywhere (except for some arbitrarily distant region of space). You'd probably say the AB is just detecting the real fields in that distant region, but that's a meaningless distinction from the point of view of a local measurement - it's sort of like saying that a radio receiver is not detecting radio waves but is instead detecting the movement of charges in the transmitter antenna. Technically true (since you can prove that the existance of moving charges somewhere is absolutely necessary in order for the radio waves to appear at the receiver) but not very illuminating. ObsidianOrder 15:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the misunderstanding is on my side, but in my understanding the AB effect isn't detecting the "real fields" in an arbitrarily distant region but those of any area which has the two electron paths as border. O.K. you can pull that area rather long, but isn't this the same as the strange phenomenon, that the total charge withing any volume can be measured by observations on its boundary, say a one lightyear radius sphere? Welcome in the strange world of long range fields. --Pjacobi 18:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

"the AB effect isn't detecting the "real fields" in an arbitrarily distant region but those of any area which has the two electron paths as border." - quite true, in the static case; not true for time-varying fields. It's possible (for example) for two electron beams passing on the same side of the AB solenoid to detect a change in the field inside the solenoid, since the two beams can travel a different length in the area to which the changed A has propagated. A step change in the field in the solenoid will cause a brief shift in the interference pattern which then returns to normal; and an oscillating field in the solenoid will cause an oscillation in the interference pattern (all assuming that one beam travels on the average closer to the solenoid than the other, both on the same side). So yeah, you can in principle put a (fixed size) measuring device as far away as you want, it doesn't have to go around the solenoid. ObsidianOrder 23:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding your point about any solution to the wave equation being acceptable as a choice for f: that is true as far as the Maxwell equations are concerned, and it had me somewhat perplexed initially. However, turns out there is an additional condition which restricts the available choices to ones with propagation velocities of c, and that's the Lorenz gauge condition. In order for the gauge to be Lorentz invariant, it must meet this condition (I'm gonna write it out as A/phi instead of four-potential): $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \epsilon_0 \mu_0 \dot{ \phi } = 0$ and as a result (in vacuum) $\nabla^2 \mathbf{A} - \epsilon_0 \mu_0 \ddot{ \mathbf{A} } = 0$ which is the wave equation with a propagation velocity of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{ \epsilon_0 \mu_0 }} = c$ , and a similar equation for phi. As the Lorenz gauge article says "It still leaves some residual gauge degrees of freedom, but they propagate freely at the speed of light, so they are insignificant." - insignificant, yeah right ;) Also see Gauge fixing. I admit this was somewhat of a surprise, but it makes perfect sense in retrospect - if A/phi are real, any non-Lorentz-invariant gauges pretty much have to be non-physical. ObsidianOrder 23:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

To start with the most curious: This is not the Tom Bearden biography, so why should it be of importance, that he is reportedly, a retired Lieutenant Colonel? --Pjacobi 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Antenna cruft: I removed the antenna cruft again [1]. It only appears on Wikipedia www.rmcybernetics.com. It is not notable and we are not in the business of mirroring the rmcybernetics site, --Pjacobi 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro comparison

[edit] Pjacobi's version

Scalar field theory is pseudoscientific paradigm which posits that electromagnetism isn't complete described by standard electromagnetic theory. Proponents claims it to be a protoscientific theory, while some skeptics refer to it as a pseudophysical theory.

Several incompatible variants of the theory are proposed, some of them claiming that Scalar electromagnetics (also known as scalar energy) is the background quantum mechanical fluctuations and associated zero-point energies.

[edit] Reddi's version

Scalar field theory posits that there is a form of electromagnetic energy more basic than electric field and magnetic field. Proponents claims it to be a protoscientific theory and state that electromagnetism isn't complete described by the standard electromagnetic theory. Skeptics refer to it as a pseudophysical theory and a pseudoscientific paradigm. Scalar electromagnetics (also known as scalar energy) is the background quantum mechanical fluctuations and associated zero-point energies (incontrast to "vector energies" which sums to zero).

Scalar waves are hypothetical waves, which differ from the conventional electromagnetic transverse waves by one oscillation level parallel to the direction of propagation, they thus have characteristics of longitudinal waves. Their existence however, as presupposed in numerous parascientific and pseudoscientific theories, has so far not been proven. Scalar waves are called also "electromagnetic longitudinal waves" or "Teslawellen".

[edit] Comments

There are several problems with Reddi's version:

First sentence doesn't make sense. A field is not an energy.
The last sentence of the first paragrapg doesn't make sense and is unattributed.
Second paragraph describes longitudinal waves, not scalar waves
It doesn't mention that the label scalar wave is so popular, that it attracted mutually incompatible theories.

Pjacobi 20:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First sentence has been modified. Scalar waves are "longitudinal waves" (as in the extrernal references). And .... scalar wave redirects here! J. D. Redding (BTW, most of the 2nd paragraph was translated from the de.wikipedia.)

I know that it comes from de: but that doesn't make it better. --Pjacobi 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Reddi, can you elaborate on the reasons for inclusion these papers?

I don't know the Stoney paper. What's it's theme?
I know the Whittaker paper's. They have no relationship to Bearden's or other theories I know of. They are in full agreement with academic treatment of electromagnetism.
I have only limited knowledge knowledge of the Ziolkowski stuff, but I don't see a connection to scalar field theory. His localized waves are solutions to Maxwell's (and other) equatations. The form of Maxwell's equatations accepted in academia.

Pjacobi 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As a side note:

Whittaker papers are cited as for "the 'infolding' of longitudinal wave electrodynamics inside the scalar potential, and also the expression of any EM field or wave as comprised of two potentials with appropriate differential functions applied".

"Stoney first pointed out the bidirectional EM wave decomposition of the scalar potential.

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whittaker has made a reformulation of standard EM (Maxwell's eq. as consensually understood by academic physics) in terms of two realvalued functions (they wouldn't be called scalar in contemporary notation, as they don't transform as scalars). This got no real practical application, but it demonstrated nicely, that EM has only two degrees of freedom per point in spacetime, matching the lack of lonfitudinal modes. --Pjacobi 07:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Which paper are you referring to?

As per the citaion link above ... "two potentials are taken as scalar potentials (Whittaker, 1904)" and the "two 'basis potentials' are first decomposed into longitudinal EM waves" (Whittaker, 1903)". J. D. Redding

Reasons for inclusion these papers? See the fricken external articles, Pjacobi! T. E. Bearden cites them. J. D. Redding 20:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (eg., Founders of Scalar Electromagnetics)

I know Bearden cites them. But to mislead people to believe that there is support for his theory. -- Pjacobi 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That is your POV, Pjacobi .... and trying to get people to attack (IMO) this article isn't very good. This is what is call source based and referenced material. J. D. Redding 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you know that you are trying to game the system. And stop re-inserting the antenna stuff. This is not knowledge. It is something existing only on one website. --Pjacobi 21:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1st ... the antenna stuff was already here in the article ... but it did need a rewrite (though not a removal as you did). 2nd, Sorry to inform you but I'm not trying to "game" the system ... just because you are unaware of or don't like the facts doesn't mean the facts are wrong. This is knowledge as reguards to this article. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

How can a discussion of the theory be made if the terminology is not delineated!?! J. D. Redding 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article page:

Terminology

The basic understanding of scalar field theory begins with several defintion of terms within the theory. A "scalar field" is a set of assigned observable magnitudes at every point in n-dimensional space (compare this with the current definition; n is also 4 or greater). ^[2] An electric field are composed of the spinning charged mass, in motion through a finite change in electrostatic scalar potential. A potential is pure energy. A potential is any ordering (static or dynamic) in the vacuum (eg., the position of the object relative to other objects). A "scalar potential" is the stationary ordering in the virtual particle flux of the vacuum (compare this with the current definition). A "vector potential" is any nonstationary ordering in the virtual particle flux of vacuum (compare this with the current definition). Scalar potentials and vector potentials are thus defined as being "contained" inside the energy domain. ^[3]

Comment

Sorry, but this total gibberish. Neither An electric field are composed of the spinning charged mass nor A potential is pure energy nor A potential is any ordering (static or dynamic) in the vacuum has any connection with the use of the terms involved in physics. Therefor it is highly misleading to mirror Bearden's private definitions here and link to phyics articles. --Pjacobi 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How can a discussion of the theory be made if the terminology is not delineated!?! Please answer this. J. D. Redding 14:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Theories need not be discussed in Wikipedia, they should be described. Some common sense about the right level of detail would be fine. And a distinction between fact and fiction.

So, either short notice should be the right level detail (Bearden's scalar field theory uses a terms like "potential", "scalar", "energy", "virtual particle" which are also used in academic physics, but assigning them other meanings), or if you really need to mirror Bearden's website, a more explicit disclaimer than simply The basic understanding of scalar field theory begins with several defintion of terms within the theory has to be used.

Pjacobi 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Insert "described" in lieu of "discussed" ... that is what I meant (if you didn't know that). Also, I added some of what you said in the paragraph. J. D. Redding 14:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., this is NOT just from T. E. Bearden's website ... appearantly you didn't look at the refs ... it is from him, but not all from his website ... inaddition, stating the various terms and what is meant by the uses of the terms is a common sense level of detail.)

[edit] repeatable experiments and the case for the theory

A paragragh need a heavy revamp ...

Despite the claims of its proponents, no repeatable experiments were able to show the existence of the scalar field.

.... wrong as concerning the repeatable experiments of J. naudin.

All observed effects were shown to comply to the standard physical laws of electrodynamics.

... where the observed effects explained by the "standard"? was it explained byt the SWT? Seems to be a pov-push and not really relevant.

observations are in spectacular agreement with the theoretical predictions

... another pov-push (eg., spectacular) and not really relevant to the subject of the article. J. D. Redding 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't accept the J. Naudin website as evidence for anything but showing what Naudin believes (or says he believes). --Pjacobi 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro again

I reverted to my earlier version, but leaving the scalar waves paragraph intact.

You can hardly say that it is self-consistent, if its mathematics doesn't make sense. Also the note that there several competing theories should be given.

Pjacobi 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stating the skeptic's position is hardly NPOV.

How can you, Pjacobi, (or anyone else) state that the theory's mathematics doesn't make sense IF you have not looked at the mathematics? Seems to be orignial research ...

String theory has several competing theories too ...

J. D. Redding 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reddi, the sentence form of electromagnetic energy more basic than the electric field and the magnetic field still doesn't make any sense. --Pjacobi 21:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "form of electromagnetic energy more basic than the electric field and the magnetic field" was in the article before I started to edit it! ... I'll see if I can get a better one (try not to remove it though ...). J. D. Redding

Take that as sign, that I'm not especially opposed agains your contributions, but against bad content in general. --Pjacobi 22:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I put in "posits that there is a basic mechanism that produces" ... seems closer to what the "literature" says from the ext articles. J. D. Redding

And the variants areincompatible, why do you delete this? Scalar waves cannot simultanously be (a) vacuum fluctations', (b) effects of neutrinos and (c) due to the suppressed quaternionic form of Maxwell's equatation. --Pjacobi 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Two seemingly incompatible conceptions can each represent an aspect of the truth [...] They may serve in turn to represent the facts without ever entering into direct conflict." — Louis-Victor de Broglie (Dialectica) ... J. D. Redding 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll have to dig up the actual mathematics, I suppose. --Pjacobi 22:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EM without Lorentz Condition

The fact that changing the governing equations would change the outcome is neither very astonishing nor directly relevant to SFT: It is only added for to give a more important sounding impression. --Pjacobi 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No ... it's directly related to the delineation of SFT. Please read "Classical electrodynamics without the Lorentz condition: Extracting energy from the vacuum" ... referenced in the "On extracting electromagnetic energy from the vacuum". J. D. Redding

Sorry, by now I don't believe that you have the necessary skills to judge what you are reading at Bearden's and other sides. Especially by continually inserting links to standard physics, where no connection exists.

If the reader wants the learn everything about Bearden's ideas, he should visit Bearden's site.

Pjacobi 21:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, by now I don't believe that you are not editing in good faith nor in a NPOV fashion. Especially by continually removing links to standard physics, where connection exists. If the article is to delineate the topic, this material must be here. J. D. Redding (PS., Just becaue it's "standard (academic consensus) stuff" does not mean that it is not part of this article!.)

[edit] More reference madness

I now remove the Whittaker references, as they don't relatze to SFT.

I'll check the Ziolkowski articles in library on monday, but a quick look on material which is available online already foreshadows the result: This is just standard (academic consensus) stuff, no connection to Bearden's claims. Besides Bearden's own listing them, do you have any hint why they should be relevant?

And the newly added "nonlinear optics" book - what constitute its connection to SFT?

Pjacobi 20:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just becaue it's "standard (academic consensus) stuff" does not mean that it is not part of this article!. J. D. Redding 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything that doesn't question the standard formulation of Maxwell eq. cannot be a reference for this article. --Pjacobi

Things that do question the standard formulation of Maxwell eq. can be a reference for this article (which you are removing). Things that do not question the standard formulation of Maxwell eq. can be a reference for this article (if it is applicable to the article and the theory). J. D. Redding 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed (primarily because of bulk ... an, additionally, for Pjacobi [or others] review them)

George Johnstone Stoney, "On a Supposed Proof of a Theorem in Wave-motion". Philosophical Magazine, 5(43), pp. 368-373 (1897).
Edmund Taylor Whittaker, "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics". Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p.333 - 355.
Edmund Taylor Whittaker, "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar potential functions". Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367 - 372.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact Solutions of the Wave Equation With Complex Source Locations". Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 26, 1985, p. 861
Richard W. Ziolkowski, D. Kent Lewis, and Bill D. Cook, "Evidence of localized wave transmission". Physical Review Letters, 1989.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, and D. Kent Lewis, "Verification of the Localized Wave Transmission Effect" Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 68, 1990, p.6083.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M. Shaarawi, "A bidirectional travelling plane wave representation of exact solutions of the scalar wave equation". Journal of Mathematical Physics, 30(6), 1989, p. 806.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, Amr M. Shaarawi, and Ioannis M. Besieris, "A space-time representation of a massive, relativistic, spin zero particle".
Richard W. Ziolkowski, Amr M. Shaarawi, and Ioannis M. Besieris, "A novel approach to the synthesis of nondispersive wave packet solutions to the Klein-Gordon and the Dirac equations" Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31(10), 1990, p. 2511.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, D. Kent Lewis, and Bill D. Cook, "Experimental verification of the localized wave transmission effect". Physical Review Letters, 62(2), 1989, p. 147.
Richard W. Ziolkowski and Michael K. Tippett, "A bidirectional wave transformation of the cold plasma equations". Journal of Mathematical Physics, 32(2) 1991, p. 488.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, A. M. Vengsarkar, Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M. Shaarawi, "Localized energy pulses in optical fiber waveguides: Closed-form approximate solutions". Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 1991.
Richard W. Ziolkowski, Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M. Shaarawi, "Localized Wave Representations of Acoustics and Electromagnetic Radiation" Proceedings of the IEEE, 79(10), Oct. 1991, p. 1371-1378.
Richard W. Ziolkowski and Edwin A. Marengo, "On the Radiating and Nonradiating Components of Scalar, Electromagnetic, and Weak Gravitational Sources". Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3345–3349 (1999)
Richard W. Ziolkowski, Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M. Shaarawi, "Localized waves in complex environments".
D. Kent Lewis, "Localized Transmission of Acoustic Beam Energy".
D. Kent Lewis and David H. Chambers "Localized Wave Pulses in the Keyport Experiment".

end removal

[edit] totallydisputed

Pjacobi removed this referenced and relevant material.

Electrodynamics and ultilization

It has been demonstrated that if the Lorentz condition is cast-off, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations assume the state of the Lehnert equations (a subset of O(3) Yang-Mills field equations). This suggest the necessity of a presence of charge density and current density in the vacuum. ^[4] Gauge invariant Proca and Lehnert equations are derived using covariant derivatives and the operator definitions of quantum mechanics. The Lorenz condition can thus be eliminated in U(1) invariant electrodynamics. ^[5]

A system may be asymmetrically regauged freely, altering the energy of the system by altering the potential. By placing the source in a closed loop with loads (and losses), half of the bidirectional travelling plane wave then discharged by the circuit demolishes the source while half supplies the loads and losses. Such systems violate the Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition. ^[6]

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 23:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at first paragraph for the moment: Cutting out all the important sounding wording, it boils down to: If electromagnetics would obey other equatations than the Maxwell's equation, the fields' behaviour and other predictions would be radically different. This borders on being a tautology, and dressing it into the referal to big (and not so big names) is misleading and a disservice to our readers. OTOH it could be evolved in a valuabe insight into SFT: It is very difficult to suggest alternative field equations, which not only give the alleged new phenomena of SFT but also reproduces all those phenomena in EM and QED which are amazingly well described by the standard equations. --Pjacobi 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No ... theory doesn't make phenomena obey anything ... theory matches phenomena ... J. D. Redding 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It boils down to the fact that "other different equations and other predictions than the Maxwell's equation match the phenonomena of electromagnetics and it's behaviour". J. D. Redding 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But Proca's Lagrangian doesn't reproduce EM phenomena at all, because its a massive theory. And Lehnert equations are unknown to physics. --Pjacobi 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What? where did you get that about the Lehnert equations? J. D. Redding 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., If you search around, it seems that B. Lehnert has been published in several peer review journals (something that you hold in high reguard) ... such as "Basic Concepts of an Extended Electromagnetic Field Theory", Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol 17, 4, 1994 p. 259-266.)

As to the first part, the Proca equations (side note, nice proca paper) are used with the Lehnert's equations from what I can tell. So ... more later on this ... whithout knowing the exact formulation (as you plainly stated that the equations are "unknown to [your] physics"), your statements do not hold. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We have an article about have Proca's equation as Proca action. The eq. of motion follow from the Lagrangian by standard methods.

Speculations in Science and Technology is a strange place to publish article on physics, see its homepage.

For now I cannot comment on the value of Lehnert's contribution, he may be inadverently caught in all this (like Ziuolkowske had to postpone the library visit for christmas shopping). But the term "Lehtner equatation is only iused by Bearden and Evans: [7].

Pjacobi 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Again ... not everything has to be from g.scholar (a reg g.search is acceptable). Do you not pay attention to wikipedia guidelines and policies? J. D. Redding 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (... awed, as usual, at the academic elitism)

It is Bo Lehnert, yes? Huge summary paper here: [8]. He rarely get citations except by himself, a notable exception is Dvoeglazov. I just want to clarify B Lehnerts relative standing in academical physics. --Pjacobi 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another side note ... Bo Lehnert, Professor Emeritus, Alfvén Laboratory (of Hannes Alfvén fame), Royal Institute of Technology. Sincerely, J. D. Redding

Mabey ... didn't find out last time I looked .... ... and, for an analogy concering the relative standing of people and things, the Gamma function was rarely cited till string theory came along (atleast according to Brian Greene). J. D. Redding 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., you do acknowledge wikipedia is not academia ... right, Pjacobi? ... [I would like a simple yes or no])

I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not academia, but IMHO this has regretable side effects. I'm all for documenting notable claims and hypotheses, independant of their correctness. But outside of these articles, in articles covering subjects of the sciences, we should present the academic consensus, as the best approach to NPOV. See the extensive (and controversial "SPOV vs NPOV" debate on wikiEN-l). ---Pjacobi 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In articles covering subjects of the sciences, wikipedia should present the NPOV facts ... not "academic consensus". SPOV (biased optional) vs NPOV(neutral non-negotiable). J. D. Redding 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my two cents

Ok, here's my take on various aspects of the recent controversy... I think the current "terminology" section really does not make sense. That may be because it is poorly written or because it really is nonsense, I don't know. I think a lot of the links to standard physics on the other hand are very relevant. There are IMHO about three or four aspects to "scalar field theory" which are either compatible with standard physics or follow from standard physics as a fairly obvious conclusion, to pick an example example "longitudinal waves" - which are trivial solutions of A/phi waves with zero electric and magnetic fields. Also the time-variable version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect that Pjacobi and I discussed on the talk page earlier. This is closely connected with gauge-fixing and renormalization, because any electromagnetic phenomena without a corresponding field correspond to a choice of a particular gauge. This may also possibly be connected to zero-point energy, although the details of the latter link are not exactly clear (perhaps ZPE exists partly as potentials not accompanied by fields? after all the conventional idea of ZPE is a superposition of waves with random phases and random orientation, the fields would tend to cancel at least some of the time). Whittaker's paper is certainly of considerable interest as well. Aside from that, there are the very odd ramblings of people like Bearden, which, even though they may contain a kernel of something interesting, are simply not couched in such terms as can be understood by any scientist, probably due to the imprecise use (and abuse) of terminology (such as "scalar", "vacuum", ...). I would like the article to distinguish between the two if possible. In fact, perhaps we should not describe SFT as a theory, but rather as a family of hypotheses, basically various proposed ways of extending Maxwellian electromagnetics - some of them compatible with conventional physics, some not, and some not even described in any way that makes sense? Plus a slew of (mostly amateur) experimental designs. ObsidianOrder 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi - "form of electromagnetic energy more basic than the electric field and the magnetic field" - I believe I wrote (or rewrote) this. I am referring to electromagnetic potentials, which are indeed more basic than fields (if they have a physical existence - a lot of physicists would probably deny that potentials exist except as a mathematical abstraction). Every field must have a corresponding potential, the reverse is not true; therefore potentials are more basic. That may not be all there is to it, but it's a start. ObsidianOrder 18:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi - "Scalar waves cannot simultanously be (a) vacuum fluctations', (b) effects of neutrinos and (c) due to the suppressed quaternionic form of Maxwell's equatation" - hmm. I understand exactly what you mean, but at least (a) and (c) are compatible in principle, no? ObsidianOrder 18:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bareley, as the effect of the vacuum fluctations can be combined into a new effective Lagrangian. If no someone unearths this famous non-equivalent quaternionic formulations (of which I still sincerely believe that it does not exist), this could be checked in principle.

But let me expand my above list of proposed mechanism to achieve non-standard results in the various incarnations of SFT:

No full formalism given (scalar voids, bubbles and magnets with four poles)
Standard Maxwell eq. but new solutions to it (Meyl)
New equations (Bearden)
Standard Maxwell eq. plus appeal to influence of (a) neutrino background (b) CMB (c) vacuum fluctations. (Global Scaling Inc)

(Such a lisz, with better reference could make a good intro, BTW)

Let's briefly compare the different proposals.

No physical theory, not falsifiable as such.
Would be the least problematic if true, but the maths are just wrong
See my comment in the preceding section. E.g. using Proca action would give massive photons.
(a) and (b) are not even wrong, (c) is effectively the same as 3)

Pjacobi 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Believing that something does not exist, does nothing to that item's existance. "Facts do not cease because they are ignored." — Aldous Huxley ... Sincerely, J. D. Redding 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of the "New equations" (which you cite to Bearden alone) were done by several people (such as Myron W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, C. Ciubotariu) ... J. D. Redding

So the peer journals (such as Physica Scripta) that published the papers let the "maths ... just wrong" by? J. D. Redding

Effects of neutrinos? Where did you get that, Pjacobi? I was gonna ask about this before ... but, from what I can tell, nowhere in the article does it talk about neutrinos ... infact, Bearden (one of the more prominent proponents of the SFT; but not the only one) has pages that you can count on one hand that mention "neutrino" (and many of those mentioned corresponds to the classical neutrino of present physics). J. D. Redding

The math is all wrong on Meyl's idea (new solutions to unchanged equations) and he never got this published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The neutrino stuff seems to be German/Swiss speciality: "Skalarwellenübertragung (mittels "Neutrino- oder Ringwirbelwellen" [..]", from http://www.info.global-scaling-verein.de/Artikel.htm. See the start page http://www.info.global-scaling-verein.de/, the website seems to be in the processs of being translated into English.

And if you feel urged to include "Global Scaling" in Wikipedia, please consider that something that looks like a money making scam and smells like a money making scam may as well be a money making scam.

Pjacobi 13:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Konstantin Meyl, "Scalar wave technology", etc., ... Myron W. Evans, et al., Physica Scripta ... T. E. Bearden, P. K. Anastasovski, C. Ciubotariu, et al., Foundations of Physics ... these are published a peer-reviewed journal article.

The "neutrino stuff" isn't related to SFT, from what I can see ... do you have a more precise reference? ... Global-scaling-verein doesn't make a reference to "Scalar field theory" nor "Scalar fields" (literal string searches). I have seen the website before ... it was at a difference URL though a year or 2 ago. I do not think that this site is related to the the overall SFT as used by it's more prominient proponents (though some of the papers seem interesting, it is (IMO) largely not applicable to SFT itself).

Inaddition ... Bearden has one of the more developed "formalism" of SFT. Bearden has not the only set though ... but one of the more robust. I'll dig up references to this though and get back to you. And, the physical theory is the same as electrodynamics does, unless you are using "physical theory" in some other way. Physical theories model reality and are a statement of what has been observed, and provide predictions of new observations. SFT does this.

J. D. Redding 15:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Skalarwellenübertragung (mittels Neutrino- oder Ringwirbelwellen [9] translates to scalar wave transmission by neutrino or circular vortex waves. They publish in NET-Journal. --Pjacobi 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok (thanks, I'm english impaired :) ... here a english version. You are refereing to "Experiments with the experimentation set for the scalar wave transmission of Prof. Dr. Ing. Meyl" (too bad this is in PDF german). Still pretty pripherial to SFT itself, IMO. The inclusion of "or" is important, IMO. As the mention of "circular vortex waves" I think has some resonance in Bearden's theories (eg., "spin vortex holes"). BUT Bearden does not associate neutrinos with the vortexes (as per above).

I think that the "Generalization OF Classical Electrodynamics ton of Admit A Scalar Field and longitudinal Waves" (in Hadronic journal) may be a better and closer example.

Bit of god.search results (take this how you want) ...

Meyl: 215 hits 13 scholar(literal 20)
Bearden: 19,500 hits; 137 scholar (literal 19)

IMO, Meyl is not as "reputable" as Bearden as reguards to SFT. And to focus on him when there is better references is not a neutral thing to do ... again IMO. J. D. Redding

I have the impression, that we agree partly. I find the Bearden stuff rather too huge, to give a summary statement, but I'll rank the fringeness the same (Bearden < Meyl < Global Scaling). At least in Germany, the scalar waves, alongsides tachyons, biophotons and whatsnot, have become popular in esoteric and alternative medicin circles, and with all due respect to the believers, it's really utter nonsense.

That's the background of my earlier remarks, that there are multiple and incompatible approaches. If you prefer them not being mixed up with Bearden's SFT, I can sympathize with you, but should we create multiple articles? Perhaps the non-Evans stuff can be beundled in one section, and the intro clarfies, that the article is mostly about Bearden.

Pjacobi 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We agree partly? mabey we do ... and mabey I'm not that much of a pri*k (not trying to be). As to the "multiple and incompatible approaches" there is commonalities in them and that is what should be delineated IMO. But, minor noting of differences ... IIRC, there is other people than Bearden (he's just a poster-child) ... subsectioning a "difference" may be a good option (I'm all for having all the fact in, like "Most agree on the vortex, but some have additional option (aka., Meyl and neutrinos) [vortex be common in the bulk of the article and meyl's view in a "diff" section] ... just neutrally presented). J. D. Redding

[edit] Renormalization vs regauging

Moved from the article for clarification:

Proponents of the theory use the term "[[Renormalization|regauging]]" to convey the techniques used to express physical calculations for the summation of infinite objects for a manageable finite set.{{ref|BeardenReguage}}<(nowiki> I assume a misunderstanding at work. "Regauging" in any meaning I'm aware of is unconnected to "renormalization". In the linked article Bearden heavily uses "regauging" in sense which needs explanation, and in one note comments on "renormalization". But there is no connection. -- user:Pjacobi

I was wrong, sorry on that ... but I did find a fuller explination. Here Bearden talks more on the subject : Technical Background on Regauging a System to Provide Free Excess Energy Sincerely, J. D. Redding

Fine, that quote makes it also quite clear, at which Bearden and acedemic consensus diverge on gauge transformations, namely starting with Changing the potential of a system is also changing its stored (potential) energy.. Physics has the energy as a function of field strengths alone, gauge change wouldn't have any effects. --Pjacobi 13:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As stated above by ObsidianOrder.... 'mainstream' physics on electromagnetic potentials deny they "exist except as a mathematical abstraction". It seemd to me ... that you are picking parts of the theory seperately and discounting each individually ... this isn't the 'right thing'. The "potential" are "real things" in SFT IIRC ... the reguaging is just a "coordinate transformation" in 'some mainstream physics', but potentials of a system (being real and determined by thier "potential difference" in SFT) are change when this is changed ... gauge change would have effects.

'Mainstream physics' does has the energy as electric, not voltage (aka the "potential difference").

J. D. Redding 16:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's only to outline difference in terminology between SFT and academical physics. In standard usage of terms Gauge transformations don't change observables. --Pjacobi 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Which actually goes right back to what I was saying earlier. It is trivial to prove that a global (i.e. everywhere in space) gauge transformation cannot change observables; however a gauge transformation which applies everywhere except a finite region of space X may change observables outside of X, and in fact, paradoxically, the difference may extend arbitrarily far from X, without attenuation! If that doesn't surprise you, you're probably not imagining it clearly enough ;) ObsidianOrder 05:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can we start presenting SFT with some less formal claims?

Currently the article tries hard not be much more accessable than Yang-Mills theory, but as Bearden himself is known for (also) giving much more accessable introductions, why can't we follow him in this respect?

See for example: http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s10.htm

This summarizes neatly the claim, that principle of linear superposition doesn't hold in SFT, or more precisely, that according to Bearden, the whole set of EM phenomena can be divided in those where superposition holds (standard EM) and those where it doesn't hold (SFT).

The entire set of slides is rather interesting.

Pjacobi 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A fine piece of creative writing, until half way through when he goes into military-paranoia mode. "The Soviets really do have an effective missile defense. We do not. At the present rate we're going, we may not have one in the year 2000 -- if we live that long." s106.htm GangofOne 12:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barkhausen effect

Hi, just saw that this article was going under a major revision that looks to include a NPOV dispute. I don't know enough on the subject to tell POV from NPOV, so if someone could check the resent expantion of Barkhausen effect to see if it got caught up in the debate, it would be appriceated. Thanks!--Rayc

This looks like plain vanilla physics to me. --Pjacobi 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical properties of scalar waves

An anon using 70.81.118.123 (appparently vicinity of Montreal, CA) made some murky additions. Presumably scalar waves are solutions of the massless Klein-Gordon equation? If so, it seems the description of their mathematical properties could be greatly improved. ---CH 23:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Ok, I've been very bold and changed this to a redirect to Scalar field. Searching for "Scalar field theory" on google gives results about real mainstream scalar field theory, which is highly notable and easily referenced in every modern text on field theory. Searching for '"Scalar field theory" Bearden -wikipedia' gives only 16 results, which are further complicated by an I.G. Bearden publishing things in Phys Rev B. --Philosophus 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move this to "scalar energy"

If Google is to be the judge of this article, then it should be moved to "scalar energy", which is currently just a redirect page to here. A google search for "scalar energy" immediately pulls up results that only relate to this subject.

Search Google for "scalar energy"

00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC) DMahalko

[edit] Removed Cleanup Tag

After reviewing the history and original page since the tag this article is much improved. Hence removal of tag. I was going to tag it ExpertVerify, but it is already in dispute. --meatclerk 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omission of poynting vector sources the cause?

It is my understanding that Lorentz arbitrarily omitted the Poynting vector energies (outside the circuit) from his interpretations of Maxwell's equations for whatever reasons. When the original 20 Maxell equations got reduced to the 4 standard forms in common use today, this part was left out.

It also stands that all currently accepted theories do not properly account for self-field affects or pre-charged states in the frame of reference.

I see no problem in exploring another theory that fully agrees with the observable data, and most current theory, but has a different mechanism of operation, especially when it has more elegant solutions to problems that current theory can not explain.

To argue out of hand, that one theory is rubbish over another, just because they have different explainations for the same phenomenon, seems petty.

To reuse terminology, with different definitions is neccessary, we simply do not have enough words in any language for every theory possess its own set of unique terms.

What makes a theory useful is just that, is it useful?

I know the Earth revolves around the Sun, but the statement "The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West" is still very useful.

SFT may turn out to be the 'Earth revolving around the Sun type of revelation', and it may still make sense to use older theories when you are 'thinking inside the box'.

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.