Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SHOULD THE LAW OF GRAVITY BE REPEALED?The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-G

Expand Messages
  • kiss4who <kiss4who@yahoo.com>
    An iron curtain divides the subjects of gravity and electrodynamics, in today s academically accepted versions of physics. Those attempting to cross it will
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      An iron curtain divides the subjects of gravity and electrodynamics,
      in today's academically accepted versions of physics. Those
      attempting to cross it will risk the intellectual equivalent of
      machine-gun fire. Beyond, lie even more serious obstacles which come,
      not from outside, but from within the mind of the investigator. To
      get at the source of those self-imposed shackles, requires that we go
      beyond the bounds of what is today defined as "physics," into matters
      usually classified as philosophical, or metaphysical. In doing so, we
      cannot avoid noticing that there are two schools in physical science,
      each one so distinct from from the other as to constitute two
      entirely different domains. It is the unfortunate aspect of our
      modern legacy that most, even among well-educated scientists, are
      unaware even of the existence of such a distinction. Yet, if the real
      history of physics of the 19th century were known, most of what
      passes as teaching of fundamental topics in that discipline today,
      would be shown to be, in the best of cases, misdirected, in the
      worst, willful fraud.

      We know of no better way to correct this deficit than to present this
      review of the conceptual history of 19th Century electrodynamics. We
      have two purposes. First, to provide the reader with an introduction
      to the mostly unknown electrodynamic theory of André-Marie Ampère,
      and his successors—this, as a necessary aid to understanding our
      feature article on the subject of anti-gravity by the distinguished
      French research scientist, Dr. Rémi Saumont. Second, by exposing a
      crucial aspect of the suppressed history of gravity, electricity, and
      magnetism, to address the deeper problem of method holding back
      science today.

      The heart of the matter before us, begins with the hypothesis and
      experimental validation of the Ampère angular force. Before the
      discovery by Oersted and Ampère of the effective equivalence of a
      closed current and a magnet, it appeared that the pairwise forces
      between bodies were governed by the same law of universal
      gravitation, which Johannes Kepler had first noted in his 1609 New
      Astronomy.1 At the time in question, 1819-1821, three known phenomena
      appeared to behave according to the assumption that the force between
      two bodies was determined according to the inverse square of their
      distance of separation. Apart from gravitation, these were the
      phenomena of electrostatic, and magnetic attraction and repulsion,
      investigated especially by Coulomb and Poisson.

      In all three cases, there was some question as to the perfect
      validity of the inverse-square assumption. In the case of magnetism,
      the impossibility of separating the two opposite poles, made exact
      measurement of the pairwise relationship of one magnet to another
      always inexact. This problem of the existence of a "third body" did
      not entirely go away, even in the case of the most carefully observed
      of these phenomena, gravitation.

      The Ampère Angular Force
      In 1826, André-Marie Ampère published a groundbreaking study,
      summarizing the work of five years of research into the laws of the
      new science that he had named electrodynamics. The results showed,
      that in the case of the pairwise interaction of two infinitesimally
      small elements of direct current electricity within conductors, the
      force between the elements was not simply dependent on the inverse
      square of their distance of separation, but also depended on the
      angles which these infinitesimal, directional elements made with the
      line connecting their centers, and with each other. (Included among
      the effects of the angular force was the result that successive
      elements of current within the same conductor would tend to repel one
      another—the longitudinal force.)2

      Ampère's discovery did not escape the attention of Carl Friedrich
      Gauss at Göttingen University, the foremost mathematical physicist of
      the age. Within two years of the publication of Ampère's results,
      Gauss turned his attention to the matter of firmly establishing their
      validity. His program, which was not to reach complete fruition until
      1846, required, first, the establishment of an absolute measure for
      the force of the horizontal intensity of the Earth's magnetism (a
      measure of the deviation oft he compass needle from true North). Up
      to that time, all measure of the strength of the Earth's magnetism
      was relative, determined by counting the frequency of vibration of a
      particular magnetic needle. Gauss, a masterful experimentalist as
      well as the leading mathematician of the age, determined to apply the
      precision techniques of astronomical measurement to the task. The
      result was the instrument known as the magnetometer. In his paper of
      1832, Gauss created a revolution in geophysics, showing how to
      determine the Earth's magnetic force at any given location and time.3

      One methodological aspect of the paper on magnetism proved defining
      for physics to this day. As also for his later work with Wilhelm
      Weber, in connection with electrical measurement, Gauss determined
      that the measure of magnetic force must be consistent with the units
      of measure of mass, length, and time, already in use in other
      branches of physics. Owing to the philosophical and historical
      illiteracy of most contemporary physics teaching, however, Gauss's
      intention is nearly always misconstrued, to assume that these units
      are meant to be self-evident scalar quantities. Rather, as a
      familiarity with Gauss's immediately preceding work on the subject of
      curvature would show (and, as was made perfectly explicit in the
      famous 1854 Habilitation thesis of his leading student, Bernhard
      Riemann,4) Gauss had already introduced a fully relativistic
      conception into the framework of experimental physics. His 1828
      description of the attempt to use state-of-the-art surveying
      techniques to measure the angular defect of a large terrestrial
      triangle should make this point evident5: As elaborated 26 years
      later by Riemann, it is the principal task of physics to determine
      the nature of the non-constant curvature of the non-Euclidean,
      multiply-connected geometric manifold which defines the action of
      physical processes.

      We will shortly see how, in the joint work with Weber on the
      determination of the fundamental electrical law, Gauss again
      introduces an actually relativistic conception, this time in
      connection with the measure of force.

      The reader must be warned, at this point, against a probable
      misinterpretation of the import of statements made so far: That would
      be to assume, that, were my perfectly accurate historical statements
      to be proven valid to his satisfaction, it would only be necessary to
      correct some names and dates to make the accounts in existing
      textbooks more or less valid. The reader's persisting error would
      involve, among other things, a confusion over our use of the term
      relativistic. From Kepler's rejection of a reductionist treatment of
      the inverse square law of gravitation discovered by him, through the
      work of Leibniz, Huygens, and the Bernoullis on the common isochronic
      principle governing falling bodies and light propagation in an
      atmosphere, to Gauss's devastating proof of Kepler's planetary
      harmonics, in his discovery of the orbit of Ceres, there prevailed a
      conception of the foundation of physics entirely different from that
      taught in today's respectable institutions of learning. Today, the
      term relativistic, means a formulaic correction to a system of
      equations and other formalisms premised on an assumed, self-evident
      notion of three-fold extension in space and one-fold in time. Up to,
      approximately, the 1881 seizure of power by Hermann von Helmholtz at
      Berlin University's Physics Department, the leading minds of European
      continental science rejected such an underlying assumption as

      Again, the problem is present-day historical illiteracy. It is
      essential that the reader grasp that the history we sketch here, is
      not some "alternative current" in physics. The early 19th Century
      discoveries, originating in Paris, and spreading into Germany through
      the influence of Gauss and his students at Göttingen University, were
      not some alternative current in physics. They remained, throughout
      most of the 19th century, the central line of thought. Today's
      academically acceptable physics is built on a radical deviation from
      that line of thought, imposed, not by reason, but by political
      maneuverings. (Attempts to provide alternative explanation, rarely
      represent more than the sort of bureaucratic maneuvering which the
      advocate supposes to be necessary to maintain job and position.) The
      proximate source of the errors can be traced to the imposition of the
      Maxwell electrodynamics and the flawed doctrine of thermodynamics
      associated with Clausius and Helmholtz. The deeper differences go to
      the fraudulent representation of the Leibniz calculus by Euler and
      Maupertuis, and its effect in suppressing the earlier breakthroughs
      of the French Scientific Academy, as exemplified by the work of

      Ampère constructed many different electrical apparatuses to deduce
      the relationship of current elements that went into his angular-
      dependent force law. Here, a reproduction from his 1825 work of the
      Second Equilibrium Experiment, in which a movable conductor, GH, is
      suspended between parallel vertical beams, PQ and RS, one containing
      a straight wire, one a sinuous wire. The experiment shows that GH
      does not move when current passes through all the wires.

      The Fundamental Electrical Law of Weber
      The experimental validation of the Ampère force was accomplished over
      the period 1832-1846, by Gauss's assistant and leading experimental
      collaborator, Wilhelm Weber. Weber's discovery made a revolution in
      physics, the full implications of which are still unrealized. Worse,
      today, the underlying discovery itself is almost buried.

      Ampère's experimental conclusions drew on a series of brilliant
      geometrical deductions, derived from the observation of
      configurations of current-carrying wires in which the forces,
      presumably, cancelled each other, producing no observable motion. To
      validate the Ampère Law, one needed to be absolutely sure that the
      lack of motion was not due to friction in the joints of the
      apparatus, or related effects. Gauss and his young assistant, Wilhelm
      Weber, devised a new apparatus, the electrodynamometer, which could
      directly measure, to within fractions of a second of arc, the angular
      displacement produced in a multiply wound electric coil by another
      electrical coil perpendicular to it. By reducing the effects of each
      of the two coils to that of circular current loops, Ampère's simple
      law for the force exerted by a current loop could be applied. Placing
      the coils in different positions, and at different distances from
      each other, allowed for determinations of the electrodynamic force,
      geometrically equivalent to those which Ampère had deduced form his
      null experiments.

      The results of a rigorous program of instrument building and
      experimentation, interrupted by Weber's expulsion from Göttingen
      University as a result of the political events of 1837, were finally
      published at Leipzig in 1846.6 These results completely confirmed the
      deductions of Ampère, and also introduced a new physical principle.

      The discovery of the phenomena of electrical and magnetic induction
      had introduced a new element into the considerations of electrical
      law, not taken up in Ampère's 1826 work. There thus existed, side by
      side, three seemingly valid descriptions of the electrical
      interaction: (1) the Coulomb-Poisson law, describing the interaction
      of two electrical masses at rest; (2) the Ampère law, describing the
      interaction of elements of moving electricity, and: (3) a description
      of the laws of induction, elaborated by Emil Lenz and Franz Neumann.
      In his Fundamental Electrical Law, stated in 1846, Weber achieved the
      unification of these various phenomena under a single conception.

      Instead of the mathematical entities, described as current elements
      by Ampère, Weber hypothesized the existence within the conductor of
      positive and negative electrical particles. He assumed that the
      presence of an electrical tension caused these particles to move at
      equal velocities in opposite directions. If one regards an Ampère
      current element as containing, at any given instant, a positive and a
      negative electrical particle, passing each other, then in the
      pairwise relationship of two current elements, there are four
      interactions to be considered. By the Coulomb law, these
      interactions, consisting of two repulsions and two attractions,
      cancel each other. However, the elementary experiments of Ampère had
      shown that a motion is produced between the wires, implying the
      existence of a force not described by the Coulomb law.

      For example, two parallel conducting wires attract each other when
      the current in the two wires flows in the same direction, and repel
      each other when the opposite is the case. The situation is perfectly
      well explained under the Ampère force law, when one takes into
      account the angular relationship of the respective current elements.
      However, Weber's unifying approach was to assume that the relative
      velocities of the electrical particles produced a modification in the
      Coulomb electrostatic force, to produce the resultant force between
      the wires. Considering all the configurations which Ampère had
      examined, as well as those arising from the phenomena of induction,
      he was able to formulate a general statement of the Fundamental
      Electrical Law. This showed that the general law describing the force
      of interaction of two electrical particles, depends upon the relative
      velocities and the relative accelerations of the particles.7 The
      Coulomb electrostatic law thus becomes a special case of Weber's
      general law, when the particles are at relative rest.

      It is not too difficult to see that Weber's Fundamental Electrical
      Law, almost unknown today, is a statement of a relativistic law of
      physics, long predating the statement of relativity we are accustomed
      to.8 Here it is the force, rather than the mass, which varies with
      the relative motion. But, not only does it predate the Einstein
      formulation, it is methodologically far superior. One can, in various
      ways, attempt to show an equivalence of the two statements, but the
      usefulness of such efforts is doubtful. The problem lies elsewhere.
      The two statements lie in two entirely different domains. One is a
      continuation of the Leibnizian current of physics; the other,
      whatever the intentions, serves to hide errors embedded in the
      assumptions underlying the Maxwell equations.

      Left, a schematic diagram of the magnetometer designed by Carl
      Friedrich Gauss in 1831, to measure, for the first time, the absolute
      intensity of the Earth's magnetic force. Needle 1 tends to produce an
      angular deflection in the second, oscillating needl«, while the
      Earth's magnetism attempts to realign it with the magnetic meridian.
      The resulting deflection is measured by reflection of the meter stick
      into the telescope. By comparing this deflection of needle 2 to the
      oscillation of the same needle, when acting solely under the
      influence of the Earth's magnetism, the absolute intensity of the
      magnetic force is determined.

      At right is a portable magnetometer built for Wilhelm Weber in 1839.

      Historical Collection of Göttingen University I. Physical Institute
      The electrodynamometer, constructed in 1841, which Wilhelm Weber used
      in the final determination of the validity of Ampere's
      electrodynamics. It consists of two perpendicular electrical coils.
      The outer coil is suspended in such a way that its rotation, under
      the influence of the inner coil, can be precisely determined by
      observing the deflection of the mirror image of a meter stick in a
      telescope, as in the Gauss-designed magnetometer. The inner coil can
      be removed, and placed at various distances.

      The Weber Constant
      In the Weber Electrical Law, there is a relative velocity,
      corresponding to the constant c in his formula, at which the force
      between a pair of electrical particles becomes zero. The Weber-
      Kohlrausch experiment, carried out at Göttingen in 1854, was designed
      to determine this value. It was found to be experimentally equal, in
      electrodynamic units, to the product of the velocity of light, in
      vacuo, with the square root of 2. That value, became known as the
      Weber constant. In electromagnetic units, it was equal to the light
      velocity. Bernhard Riemann, who participated in the experiment, soon
      wrote up the obvious conclusion of a deep connection between light
      and electrodynamic, or electromagnetic phenomena. What was not
      obvious, was the answer to a question which Gauss had insisted, in
      his 1845 correspondence with Weber, be a prerequisite to further
      progress. That was to find a constructible representation of how the
      propagation of the electrodynamic interaction occurs.9

      What Maxwell is famously celebrated for, unifying the representation
      of light and electromagnetic phenomena using a wave conception, was
      precisely what Gauss—and Ampère before him, had rejected as an
      oversimplification. Ampère had been so close to the development of
      the modern wave theory of light, that its founder, his good friend
      Augustin Fresnel, lived in his Paris apartment at the same time that
      Ampère was carrying out his electrical researches. To suppose that
      Ampère, and later Gauss, did not consider a wave representation for
      electromagnetic propagation is absurd. In order to establish his
      theory, Maxwell had to disregard the most crucial questions and
      anomalies that had arisen in the decades-long study of these
      phenomena by the greatest minds before him. Foremost among these were
      the angular (or relative velocity) dependency of the electrodynamic
      force, and the little problem of where gravitation should fit in.

      The possibility of subsuming the phenomenon of gravitation under
      electrodynamics, came up for serious discussion early in this
      history. One of the more widely discussed contributions was a memoir
      of about 1830 by O.F. Mossotti, a French physics teacher at the
      University of Buenos Aires.10 Mossotti proposed to account for
      gravitation in the following way: If matter is assumed to be
      constituted of equal amounts of positive and negative electricity,
      then, by the usual interpretation, there would be a cancellation of
      the attractive and repulsive forces. However, if it be assumed that
      the attractive forces between particles of opposite electrical
      charge, slightly exceed the repulsive forces of the like particles, a
      universal tendency for attraction would result.

      Weber gave serious consideration to the Mossotti hypothesis. In a
      posthumously published manuscript on the relationship of electricity
      and gravitation, he discussed the extreme difficulty of
      experimentally determining whether such a small difference between
      attractive and repulsive forces exists.11

      In the same memoir, Weber reviews the work of several astronomers,
      who attempted to apply his Fundamental Electrical Law to correct the
      law of gravitation, by including terms for the relative velocities
      and relative accelerations of a pair of bodies. One of the glaring
      anomalies in the Newton-Laplace theory of gravitation was its
      inability to accurately predict the advance of the perihelion of the
      planets, of which Mercury's is the largest. (The phenomenon is famous
      as being one of the foundational proofs for general relativity.)

      In 1864, the Göttingen astronomer C. Seegers proposed to examine the
      advance of the perihelion from the standpoint that the gravitational
      force be represented in the same way as the Fundamental Electrical
      Law.12 Thus, the relative velocities and accelerations of the bodies
      of the solar system would have to be taken into account, and the
      factor 1/c2 introduced as a correction. Eight years later, Prof.
      Scheibner in Leipzig determined a secular variation of 6.73 arc-
      seconds for the perihelion of Mercury, attributable to the
      application of the Weber law. In 1872, Tisserand found the value 6.28
      seconds for Mercury, and 1.32 seconds for Venus, by applying the
      Weber law.13

      Another approach to the unification of gravitation with the Ampère-
      Gauss-Weber electrodynamics, was taken at the beginning of the 20th
      Century by the Swiss mathematical physicist, Walther Ritz. After
      brilliant successes in spectroscopy at Göttingen, Ritz launched an
      attack on the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz, and attempted
      to revive the abandoned approach of Gauss, Weber, and Riemann. In a
      short paper on gravitation, he suggested that the net effect of the
      electrodynamic forces between two electrically neutral bodies would
      be an attraction. His approach was not that of Mossotti; rather, he
      seems to be considering the internal motions of the electrical
      particles in the atoms as generating such a net effect. The paper is
      all too short; Ritz died in 1909 at the age of 31. (Deviations in the
      gravitational force, detected at eclipses, and other anomalous
      effects suggesting the need for radical revamping of accepted theory
      continue to make themselves known. The recent work of Maurice Allais,
      Benedetto Soldano, and Shu-wen Zhou is notable.14)

      Ritz was not alone in his dissatisfaction with the oversimplification
      of the Maxwell electrodynamics. From the first 1820 breakthrough
      hypothesizing the origin of magnetism in microscopic electrical
      currents, the Ampère electrodynamics was seen as a means of gaining
      insight into the microphysical domain. The enormously complex task of
      adducing the atomic structure from such indirect evidence as that
      provided by spectroscopy, came to an abrupt, abnormal halt about the
      time of the 1927 Solvay conference, where Bohr's great
      oversimplification of atomic structure was imposed by political
      thuggery of the worst sort. Here again, we come to the importance of
      a virtually unknown aspect of Weber's work.

      Return to top Limiting Velocity and Critical Length
      As for electrodynamics, so for the history of atomic theory, the
      modern teaching is largely a fairy tale. A brief look at two crucial
      matters will establish this point beyond contradiction, and may help
      orient the reader to finding a way out of the present impasse. If it
      appears, at first, that we have "dug him in deeper,"by making matters
      more complicated than they might have already seemed, we are
      confident the feeling will be only temporary.

      The point here is best summarized by reference to the last two of the
      memoirs, published in Weber's lifetime, under the title
      Elektrodynamische Maassbestimmungen (Determinations of Electrodynamic
      Measure). The 1870 memoir, available in English, was the first to
      come to this writer's attention, about a decade ago.15 The immediate
      topic is Helmholtz's objection, that Weber's Electrical Law could
      lead to the possibility of infinite work arising from a finite amount
      of work. Weber shows that for Helmholtz's fears to be realized,
      electrical particles would have to move at enormous relative
      velocities, exceeding the constant c. He thus arrives at a concept of
      a limiting velocity, quite similar to that found 35 years later in
      the Special Theory of Relativity, yet arrived at by an entirely
      different process than that which leads Einstein to this assumption.
      (Again, the usual warnings apply: Any attempt to find an equivalence
      or interpolation, as by algebraic means, between the Ampère-Gauss-
      Weber electrodynamics, and today's Brand X, is fruitless. To achieve
      any useful understanding, the reader must relive the original
      discovery as if it were his own).

      More startling than the immediate answer to Helmholtz's objection,
      are the conclusions Weber is led to in his preliminary summary of the
      Fundamental Electrical Law. Here, he introduces for the first time
      the consideration that the electrical particles possess not merely a
      quantity of electricity (the magnitude we today call charge), but
      also mass. When the consideration of mass is introduced into his
      velocity-dependent electrical force equation, it results that there
      is a critical length below which the force of repulsion between two
      electrical particles is changed to attraction, and vice versa! The
      Weber critical length has the value:

      It is among the delightful ironies of the official cover-up known as
      modern scientific historiography, that the expression for the
      classical electron radius (a concept which is not supposed to come
      into existence for another 30 or more years), falls out of Weber's
      expression—indeed, as a trivial case!

      It gets more interesting. Weber has already dared, in the 1870 paper,
      to conceive the notion we know today as the proton-electron mass
      ratio, which leads him to wonder as to the possible motions of the
      different configurations of particle pairs. It turns out that,
      according to his relativistic electrical law (one which was never
      considered in the accepted, modern formulations of atomic theory), it
      is possible to develop an orbital system for the case of a lighter
      electrical particle of one sign, orbiting a heavier particle of the
      opposite sign! It is also possible for two similar particles of the
      same sign to develop a closed system of oscillations along the
      straight line connecting them.

      We leave to a future time, the treatment of the last major
      accomplishment of Weber, the refutation of Clausius' thermodynamics
      and the Helmholtz Energy Principle.16 The problem with the fraud
      known as modern, academically accepted science, is not merely that
      credit has not been given for these prior discoveries. Far more
      devastating is that, in the modern formulation of notions similar to
      those that Weber had derived far earlier, there is no lawful
      derivation. We fly, rather, by the seat of our pants, hoping to reach
      the destination intact.

      —Laurence Hecht
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.