Does the Ampere need to be redefined?

[madMAx4]

Does the Ampere need to be redefined? Maybe.

What happens when we redefine the Ampere to m^3/s (volume per second)?

Specifically what happens with the electric potential (Volts) and the magnetic vector potential (Volts times Seconds per Meter)?

[UnemployedMech]

I think it works pretty good as its defined. Otherwise, you would have to add different conversions across the board to get the units to cancel out.

You're essentially saying that an electrical charge must be measured in volume.

Voltage would go from being (kg*m^2)/(A*s^3) to kg/(m*s^2) but this is a Pascal or a pressure.

Mangnetic Vector Potential would just be kg/m. But that is density so this doesn't make any sense.

You might not notice this, but unit analysis is a critical skill. Its an easy way to idiot check complex systems, which is the biggest reason why SI is a better system than English. Even just changing one unit causes the whole system to fall apart.

[madMAx4]

You made an error with the vector potential. It would be:

[A] = Vs/m = kg*m^2*s/(A*s^3*m) => kg/(m^2*s)

which is momentum density. Or in other words: mass per second flowing through an area.

So electric potential is pressure and magnetic vector potential is momentum density. Do you see where i'm getting at?

[UnemployedMech]

Good catch on my units. That's what I get for trying to do it in my head.

I can see where you think this would simplify things, but it only will lead to issues, especially if you try and do heat loss calculations on electrical systems. You would have to change the whole SI system to reflect the changes you want to make.

I've only used the term momentum density for quantum calculations for radiation and the like...which is far from my comfort area.

[madMAx4]

What i'm trying to show is that the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential basically describe a fluid, just based on another system of units.

If you change the Ampere to m^3/s you get the exact units for pressure and momentum density which are used in case of a newtonian fluid.

[boguslaw]

What i'm trying to show is that the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential basically describe a fluid, just based on another system of units.

If you change the Ampere to m^3/s you get the exact units for pressure and momentum density which are used in case of a newtonian fluid.

You are simply a GENIOUS!

This is the missing puzzle along with get rid of current part from Maxwell equations and replace by pressure waves (longitudinal) or magnetic and/or electric fields. I wish I could do that but I lost my memory and ability to compute anything above 2+2, but this is surely the solution.
Current should not be put arbitrary into equations but should pop up as a solution of longitudinal electric wave in the volume of free charges. The same resistance and magnetic field around conductor are only due to polarization of conductor (spin alignments of electrons - small magnets (Ed Leedscalnin))

Sorry if this look like a piece of sh*t , but I truly believe Maxwell equation must be symmetrical.


We would got magnetic current also :-) and gravitation as a slowdown effect of magnetic current (maybe) similar to resistance.

[madMAx4]

Current should not be put arbitrary into equations but should pop up as a solution of longitudinal electric wave in the volume of free charges.

Exactly. Because current is a secondary effect, like particles moving in streaming water.

I'm in the process of making sense of it all.

Basically what you have is a fluid with charges in it.
The charges exert a pressure on the fluid, like if they are pumping or sucking fluid into or out of our 3D space. This is represented by the charge potential:

div grad Phi = - rho / e0

Where Phi is the electric potential in Volts, rho the charge density and e0 the electric constant.
When you solve this equation you get the pressure field caused by an arbitrary charge distribution.

Now you can calculate the electric field E resulting from all the potentials:

E = - grad ( Phi + Phi2 + Phi3 + ... )

Because there are multiple potentials, one caused by the charges and another one caused by diverging fluid mass, but more on that later.

Now what does the E field do. Let's look at Maxwell–Faraday induction:

curl E = - dB/dt

If you replace the B field by what it actually is, curl A, it will lead to this:

curl E = - curl dA/dt

Now you see that the curl doesnt make any difference, so Maxwell–Faraday induction basically is nothing else than:

dA/dt = - E

which means the E field is acceleration of the A field.
If you think in terms of a fluid this makes perfectly sense, you would assume a pressure gradient to accelerate the fluid. Remember the A filed is nothing else than momentum density which is velocity times density.

If for whatever reason you need the B field you can always derive it from the A field:

B = curl A

Now there is still something missing, so far we only have fluid motion caused by a pressure gradient. However fluid motion can also create pressure.

This is where the Lorenz gauge (Lorenz gauge condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) comes in handy:

dPhi/dt = - c^2 * div A

which means that a diverging momentum density will cause a change in pressure. Again when thinking in therms of a fluid this makes perfectly sense. When fluid is entering or leaving a volume it will cause the buildup of positive/negative relative pressure.

But why do i use the Lorenz gauge and not the Coulomb gauge (div A = 0)?
It is well known that without Lorenz gauge there is no wave propagation. This is like saying without the spring in a mass-spring system there is no oscillation. It's obvious why.
So there is really no gauge freedom, if you use any other gauge than the Lorenz gauge you are not dealing with reality anymore, because in reality there is always wave propagation.

To sum it all up, with the above equations you are fully describing a fluid system, nothing else.
They may have formally abandoned the ether, but it is and always was there in the equations.

Finally we can introduce current now. It can be described by the Lorentz force:

F = q ( E + v x B )

where F = force, v = velocity and B = curl A.
So it seems for whatever reason a charged particle responds to a magnetic field or curled A field when it is moving.
And also just like the ether is accelerated by an E field, the charged particle is too.

And further if you visualize the magnetic field around a conductor together with the direction of the current it seems, based on the Lorentz force, that the magnetic field tries to push the electrons into the conductor.

This is it so far, i'm currently working on a numerical solution algorithm to solve the equations and produce some results in form of videos.

But one thing is clear, without any calculations, if you change the electric field in time it will cause an oscillating A field, which in turn can cause an oscillating magnetic field to occur. This oscillation could be captured by a traditional coil and produce current. It only takes a time varying E field to cause the oscillation.

[Ufopolitics]

You make completely sense to Me...

Great Thread!!

Hello MadMAx4!

I do agree with you in every aspect of your calculations and reasoning here.
Excellent approach, you are absolutely on the Right Track...keep going and do not hear (Ignore) "The Dogs Barking"... that means "You are moving ahead"...(phrase from "Quixote")...

Regards


Ufopolitics

[madMAx4]

Thank you.

Moreover, i think i just found a reason why the Ampere should in fact be m^3/s.

You probably know this equation:


c0 = 1 / sqrt( u0 * e0 )

If you do a unit analysis here:

[u0 * e0] = V*s/(A*m) * F/m = kg/(A*m^2*s) * s^4*A^2/(m^3*kg) = A*s^3/m^5

you will see that it doesnt add up.

Now change the Ampere to m^3/s and see what happens:

[u0 * e0] = m^3*s^3/(m^5*s) = s^2/m^2

Now flip it and take the square root:

sqrt(m^2/s^2) = m/s

which is the unit you would expect for speed of light.

EDIT: To sum it all up, changing the Ampere to m^3/s would not only remove this inconsistency, but it would also transform the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential into something meaningful, namely pressure and momentum density, which is the exact definition of a fluid.

It could all be a coincidence, but i dont think it is.

EDIT2: Actually the units match regardless how the Ampere is defined. So just disregard this post.

[boguslaw]

I think you solved all physics problems!

However are you sure it is liquid not a gas which sometimes behave like liquid ?
I mean it could be that Tesla was right and because he was genious and has many years to study problem from both empirical and theoretical point of view (in last period of life he found theory merging all forces in simple way) I think this Aether may be gas which sometimes is condensed into liquid.

I think also you should find if Maxwell theory describe something which can be explained as viscosity. This maybe important.Tesla stated that ether is non compressible gas, which probably means no viscosity (ideal gas) which imho do not forbid change state into liquid. Maybe he thought about fluid (gas or liquid) ?

My question : what is the meaning of A vector in your theory ? Sorry but I'm a bit lost when I see math

[madMAx4]

I think you solved all physics problems!

However are you sure it is liquid not a gas which sometimes behave like liquid ?
I mean it could be that Tesla was right and because he was genious and has many years to study problem from both empirical and theoretical point of view (in last period of life he found theory merging all forces in simple way) I think this Aether may be gas which sometimes is condensed into liquid.

I think also you should find if Maxwell theory describe something which can be explained as viscosity. This maybe important.Tesla stated that ether is non compressible gas, which probably means no viscosity (ideal gas) which imho do not forbid change state into liquid. Maybe he thought about fluid (gas or liquid) ?

My question : what is the meaning of A vector in your theory ? Sorry but I'm a bit lost when I see math

It is momentum density, which is fluid velocity times its density. This means that both velocity and density could change such that A is still the same.

It doesnt matter if it is a fluid or gas, because the equations hold true for both cases. In fact the principal fluid dynamics of air and water are exactly the same. Only the material constants are different.

Also let me say that there is no such thing as a non compressible fluid or gas, it is always compressible. Sometimes we say it is incompressible because it seems like it, but in fact it is just an approximation.

You could say that ether is a gas. Now that i think of it, it actually makes sense to view it as a gas. Because now you can say that charged particles are condensed gas or liquid "drops", because these particles have a much higher density than ether. This is also why you need to handle them differently in form of the Lorentz force.

So yes, you are right it makes more sense to view it as a gas.
However viscosity has nothing to do with the definition of an ideal gas. Viscosity is friction, and yes the ether has a viscosity, but it is of such a low magnitude that you can disregard it.
Look at the cosmological redshift (Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It only comes into effect when you want to transmit signals to distant galaxies.

So here on earth we can work with a superfluid (meaning zero viscosity) gas like ether, without any problems.

EDIT: When i say gas like i dont mean it is significantly compressible like air for example. So when you say it is incomressible you are pretty close.
The order of compressibillity is given by its speed of sound, which is the speed of light.
So compare the speed of sound in ether, which is 300,000,000 m/s, to the speed of sound in water, which is 1,500 m/s, and you get an idea of how incompressible the gas like ether is: around 200,000 times more incompressible than water.

[boguslaw]

Please bear with me

Speed of sound in fluids :

c = sqrt(K/rho) , rho - density of fluid, K - bulk modulus
however Bulk modulus is often defined as B=1/K

so
c = 1/sqrt(rho*B)


Does it mean that rho=e0 itself is density of ether and u0 is a bulk modulus of ether (elasticity of ether) ?

IMHo very close. If I'm correct at this we can explain much more and maybe even every secret constants used nowadays to confuse lecturer and put him into lalaland of master mind.

Sources below. Correct me please

Bulk modulus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elasticity, Elastic Properties

[boguslaw]

Look also here : Andrei Sakharov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It struck me because I knew he was working with concept of spacetime elasticity.

"After 1965 Sakharov returned to fundamental science and began working on particle physics and cosmology.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

He especially tried to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe, being the first scientist to introduce two universes called "sheets", linked by the Big Bang. Sakharov achieved there a complete CPT symmetry since the second sheet is enantiomorph (P-symmetry), has an opposite arrow of time (T-symmetry) and is mainly populated by antimatter (C-symmetry) because of an opposite CP-violation. In this model the two universes do not interact, except via local matter accumulation whose density and pressure would become high enough to connect the two sheets through a bridge without spacetime between them, but with geodesics continuity beyond the radius limit allowing an exchange of matter. Sakharov called such singularities a collapse and an anticollapse, which are an alternative to the couple black hole and white hole in the wormhole theory. Sakharov also proposed the idea of induced gravity as an alternative theory of quantum gravity."

[madMAx4]

Does it mean that rho=e0 itself is density of ether and u0 is a bulk modulus of ether (elasticity of ether) ?

The official unit of e0 is A^2*s^4/(m^2*kg). I cant deduce any meaning out of that.

However when you change the ampere to A=m^3/s:

[e0] = s^2*m^3/kg

Now when you transpose it, it becomes more clear:

[1/e0] = kg/(m^3*s^2)

It is density acceleration. This is what i ment earlier, that the charges are pumping/sucking aether into/out of our 3D space. And e0 is the magnitude of that effect based on a unit charge.

The unit of u0 with A=m^3/s is kg/m^5, which is density per area. However i have no idea what this could mean.

I see that you are trying to determine the density of aether? I dont think that it is possible unless you find some new way to directly measure the aether. But as long as we are limited to measuring only voltages and forces, i dont think it can be done.

[madhatter]

madMAx4, Welcome!
excellent posts, deep and very simple.

I think it was here or it may have been on a physics group board I presented the issue of cyclical units and derived ones. presently they are all fixed around the relativity of C.

recently I've been doing research on the quantum nature of wave matter and your input on the volume density of current made me think of Schrodinger's equation in polar form. taking current as a volume density would then mean we'd have to have a vector notation for coordinate planes. bringing my somewhat disjointed thoughts around to counter-space. the puzzle fits together better and keeps pointing to a 'spherical' wave function.

quantum physics equations started from fluid dynamics and plane waves, graduating towards to polar and spherical & hyper dimensions. It makes complete sense to move EM waves in the same fashion, the trick is paying attention to what comes first. cause and effect have no meaning in the quantum world, yet that's where EM originates!