Difference between revisions of "Burak Polat"

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 39: Line 39:
 
Let me sum up:  
 
Let me sum up:  
  
* THE INFLUENCE OF MOTION IN MACROSCOBIC ELECTROMAGNETISM IS PROPERLY DESCRIBED ONLY BY FRAME INDIFFERENT FORMULATION OF MAXWELL EQUATIONS. * THE ASSERTIONS OF SPECIAL OR GENERAL RELATIVITY CONTRADICT WITH ALL EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.  
+
* THE INFLUENCE OF MOTION IN MACROSCOBIC ELECTROMAGNETISM IS PROPERLY DESCRIBED ONLY BY FRAME INDIFFERENT FORMULATION OF MAXWELL EQUATIONS.
 +
* THE ASSERTIONS OF SPECIAL OR GENERAL RELATIVITY CONTRADICT WITH ALL EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.  
 
* UNFORTUNATELY, EINSTEIN DID NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE MISINTERPRETED ASYMMETRY IN ELECTROMAGNETISM IN HIS SO CALLED ORIGINAL(!) 1905 PAPER. HE TURNED PHYSICS INTO A BLIEF SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE "MAIN STREAM" ("DISCIPLES") WHO WORSHIPPED HIM, AND SO MUCH PAIN AND TORTURE FOR THE RATIONAL "DISSIDENTS" WHO STOOD AGAINST THIS CHURCH.  
 
* UNFORTUNATELY, EINSTEIN DID NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE MISINTERPRETED ASYMMETRY IN ELECTROMAGNETISM IN HIS SO CALLED ORIGINAL(!) 1905 PAPER. HE TURNED PHYSICS INTO A BLIEF SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE "MAIN STREAM" ("DISCIPLES") WHO WORSHIPPED HIM, AND SO MUCH PAIN AND TORTURE FOR THE RATIONAL "DISSIDENTS" WHO STOOD AGAINST THIS CHURCH.  
 
* FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT RELATIVITY IS CORRECT, IT SHOULD BE REMINDED THAT A THEORY CANNOT BE FALSIFIED BY INTODUCING ANOTHER THEORY. THIS IS NOT HOW THINGS WORK IN SCIENCE. IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WE ALREADY HAVE A THEORY THAT HAS BEEN WORKING PROPERLY SINCE 17TH CENTURY BASED ON NEWTONIAN MECHANICS. THEREFORE AS A FIRST STEP IN THE PROOF OF RELATIVITY  ONE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT RELATIVISTIC FORMULATIONS YIELD MORE ACCURATE RESULTS BY DEVISING EXPERIMENTAL SET-UPS THAT ALL SIDES CONSENT ON THEIR ACCURACY. UNTIL THEN RELATIVITY HAS NO CHANCE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND HAVE A PLACE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM.  
 
* FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT RELATIVITY IS CORRECT, IT SHOULD BE REMINDED THAT A THEORY CANNOT BE FALSIFIED BY INTODUCING ANOTHER THEORY. THIS IS NOT HOW THINGS WORK IN SCIENCE. IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WE ALREADY HAVE A THEORY THAT HAS BEEN WORKING PROPERLY SINCE 17TH CENTURY BASED ON NEWTONIAN MECHANICS. THEREFORE AS A FIRST STEP IN THE PROOF OF RELATIVITY  ONE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT RELATIVISTIC FORMULATIONS YIELD MORE ACCURATE RESULTS BY DEVISING EXPERIMENTAL SET-UPS THAT ALL SIDES CONSENT ON THEIR ACCURACY. UNTIL THEN RELATIVITY HAS NO CHANCE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND HAVE A PLACE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM.  

Revision as of 08:42, 4 January 2019

Burak Polat
Burak Polat
Born (1971-12-10)December 10, 1971
Residence Istanbul, Turkey
Nationality Turkish
Known for Electromagnetism, antennas, propagation, radiation, scattering, applied mathematics, mathematical physics
Scientific career
Fields Professor, Electrical Engineer

Personal Web Site: http://www.aburakpolat.com Institutional Web Site: http://avesis.yildiz.edu.tr/abpolat/

Physical World View: As a Professor of Theoretical Electromagnetism my personal perspective on macroscobic electromagnetic theory can be outlined as follows:

  • Neither time nor velocity (or speed) is a physical quantity. Traditionally, a physical quantity is defined as any quantity that can be quantified by measurement and has a specific unit in a given unit system (such as MKS or CGS system). This is a superficial useless description. "Physical" quantities are ONLY those associated with CONSERVATION LAWS. Mass, charge, momentum and energy are such common examples. In that regard, distance and time lapse are NOT physical quantities, they are only mathematical tools to describe a physical mechanism. They cannot be quantified by measurements either; they are actually the conceptual tools utilized to set up a measurement system. The (3+1)D notation to describe four dimensional space is also meaningless since space and time are equivalent conceptually and functionally. It is just 4D Space !.
  • Velocity and acceleration, which are derived in terms of distance and time lapse, are therefore NOT physical quantities, either.
  • The nature of a physical quantity cannot change (in other words, remains the same) when multiplied with a nonphysical quantity. For instance, mass is a physical quantity from the discipline of mechanics. Momentum and force, which are derived by multiplying mass with velocity and acceleration respectively, are again quantities of same nature (belonging to the same discipline).

A contradicting case can be given from Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics: Under Lorentz Transformations electrical field in the moving frame is observed as magnetic field in the laboratory frame, which appears as multiplication of electrical field with VELOCITY. This is only one example to realize that Special Relativity is physically unsupported. Electrical and magnetic fields are of DIFFERENT nature and origin. Velocity, as a nonphysical quantity, is never capable of transforming an electrical field quantity into a magnetic one, same as an apple does not turn into an orange as it starts to move.

  • CONVECTION CURRENTS SIGNIFY MATERIAL DISPLACEMENT!. Please be advised that laws of electromagnetism of STATIONARY MEDIA cannot involve convection currents. Their inclusion into Maxwell's Equations always yield physically unsupported results that VIOLATE continuity of current as the partial time derivatives in Faraday-Maxwell and Ampere-Maxwell Equations require to be replaced with material (aka convective, substantial) derivate when the velocity field is a function of time and with Oldroyd (aka upper convected material or comoving time) derivative when the velocity field is an arbitrary function of space and time. The presence of convection currents in Ampere-Maxwell's Law functions analytically same as conduction currents that radiate electromagnetic waves. Let me address two common misinterpretations:

1) The belief that a STATIC point source in motion RADIATES electromagnetic energy described via Lienard - Wiechert Potentials. What actually happens is that the static field lines (flux) generated by the point charge move in accord with the arbitrary motion of the source AS A WHOLE, without any deformation in shape.

2) Generation of magnetostatic field when a disk supporting free charges rotates uniformly around its own axis (known as Rowland's Disk). And in presence of acceleration there is believed to occur electromagnetic radiation mechanism. Actually, uniform rotation of such a disk of free static charges does not generate any magnetic field. One always observes the circulation of static electric field lines (flux) in space REGARDLESS OF acceleration.

  • Another conceptual failure of Special Relativity reveals upon the application of Lorentz Transformations to Maxwell's Equations which involve convection currents. This is known as Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics. While convection currents are fully capable of modeling mechanical motion of sources with ARBITRARY velocity, one applies Lorentz Transformation to understand the action of "rectilinear unaccelerated motion" over a system already "in general arbitrary motion"! Funnier is the fact that the motion in moving frame is described by Maxwell's Equations involving convection currents which obey Newtonian Mechanics in Euclidean 4D Space, while the motion in observer frame is described via Lorentz Transformations assuming that Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. Sheer absurdity !
  • It should not be forgotten that Lorentz Transformations DO NOT yield Galilean Transformations exactly in the limiting case as the relativistic factor Beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) tends to 1. This means that Special (and General) Relativity is NOT A COVERING THEORY for Newtonian Mechanics. On the contrary, the physical evidences of these two theories are on opposite ends. Therefore anyone who "believes" that Special (and General) Relativity is correct, then he/she is in a position NOT to utilize any mathematical tool and physical law devised in Classical Continuum Physics in Euclidean 4D Space in describing any physical mechanism. This includes claiming the classical Faraday's Law (emf induction mechanism) and Doppler Effect from Hertzian Electromagnetism, which are widely used and tested every single day in every technological area since late 19th century till date to be ERRONEOUS. Good Luck there!
  • I cannot help but emphasizing that the combination of the words "Special" and "Theory" is an oxymoron. After all, special cases do not make a theory! Correct title would be Special Case of Relativity Theory but still that would be absurd since one claims to introduce a special case of a theory before the theory itself.
  • It is nothing but a waste of time for those trying to extend the capability of Lorentz Transformations to bodies in arbitrary motion. Lorentz Transformation only apply for a POINT particle. Any attempt to generalize the velocity vector is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUPPORTED. An example is the "Instantaneous Rest Frame Approach" by Van Bladel. One can realize that they ALL consent on calling such attempts HEURISTIC. This is nothing but a kind way of saying something is BULLSHIT !
  • It should be realized that invoking Special (or General) Relativity into classical electromagnetism is totally UNNECESSARY and yields INSUFFICIENT AND INCORRECT results that contradict with well established experiments in the context of Electrical Engineering. Relativity theory does not stem from the so called experimental proofs of unpresence of aether in the second half of 19th century, but its origin lies on the fact that Einstein was not able to grasp papers of Hertz and Heaviside on electrodynamics of moving bodies due to lack of background on advanced calculus.
  • Electrodynamics of both stationary and moving media can only be treated corrected in the context of FRAME INDIFFERENT THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETISM, which asserts that the laws of macroscobic electromagnetism as described by Maxwell’s Equations of stationary media are frame indifferent and recognize all frame indifferent axioms, postulates, principles and laws of other disciplines that constitute Newtonian Continuum Mechanics in Euclidean Space. This is another way to saying that Eulerian and Lagrangian frame observers are in full agreement with
1) the nature (or state) of any physical quantity
2) the structural form and content of any physical law, and 
3) the result of any measurement taken

in the two frames.

  • The well known Hertzian formulation of electromagnetism where velocity vector of motion is a function of time, constitute a special case of the frame indifferent formulation

Let me sum up:

  • THE INFLUENCE OF MOTION IN MACROSCOBIC ELECTROMAGNETISM IS PROPERLY DESCRIBED ONLY BY FRAME INDIFFERENT FORMULATION OF MAXWELL EQUATIONS.
  • THE ASSERTIONS OF SPECIAL OR GENERAL RELATIVITY CONTRADICT WITH ALL EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.
  • UNFORTUNATELY, EINSTEIN DID NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE MISINTERPRETED ASYMMETRY IN ELECTROMAGNETISM IN HIS SO CALLED ORIGINAL(!) 1905 PAPER. HE TURNED PHYSICS INTO A BLIEF SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE "MAIN STREAM" ("DISCIPLES") WHO WORSHIPPED HIM, AND SO MUCH PAIN AND TORTURE FOR THE RATIONAL "DISSIDENTS" WHO STOOD AGAINST THIS CHURCH.
  • FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT RELATIVITY IS CORRECT, IT SHOULD BE REMINDED THAT A THEORY CANNOT BE FALSIFIED BY INTODUCING ANOTHER THEORY. THIS IS NOT HOW THINGS WORK IN SCIENCE. IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WE ALREADY HAVE A THEORY THAT HAS BEEN WORKING PROPERLY SINCE 17TH CENTURY BASED ON NEWTONIAN MECHANICS. THEREFORE AS A FIRST STEP IN THE PROOF OF RELATIVITY ONE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT RELATIVISTIC FORMULATIONS YIELD MORE ACCURATE RESULTS BY DEVISING EXPERIMENTAL SET-UPS THAT ALL SIDES CONSENT ON THEIR ACCURACY. UNTIL THEN RELATIVITY HAS NO CHANCE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND HAVE A PLACE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM.
  • TALKING ABOUT SERIOUS ISSUES, A SYSTEM IN RECTILINEAR MOTION WITH CONSTANT VELOCITY DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO ANY ACTUAL PHYSICAL MECHANISM. THIS MEANS THAT A RELATIVIST CAN STUDY AND EXPLAIN EMF INDUCTION MECHANISM FOR A ROTATING CLOSED CIRCUIT UNDER A STATIC MAGNETIC FIELD, WHICH IS IN THE CURRICULUM OF SOPHOMORE ENGINEERING STUDENTS, ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, COMPULSORILY TAKING GRAVITATIONAL FORCES INTO ACCOUNT :-). IT IS NOT BY CHANCE THAT THE TOPICS OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ARE BEYOND THE AREA OF INTEREST FOR GREAT MAJORITY OF RELATIVISTS.
  • STILL, I AM NOT SAYING THAT SPECIAL OR GENERAL RELATIVITY CANNOT DESCRIBE ANY PHENOMENON IN ANY OTHER BRANCH OF PHYSICS (SUCH AS PARTICLE PHYSICS OR COSMOLOGY) AS LONG AS IT IS NOT COUPLED TO MACROSCOBIC ELECTROMAGNETISM. SUCH A DISCUSSION IS BEYOND MY BACKGROUND AND AREA OF STUDY.
  • HOWEVER, IF A RELATIVISTIC IMPROVEMENT OF FRAME INDIFFERENT ELECTROMAGNETICS WOULD EVER BE REQUIED ONE DAY, THE PROPER APPROACH IS TO CONSTRUCT A THEORY THAT YIELDS THE FRAME INDIFFERENT FIELD EQUATIONS EXACTLY IN THE NONRELATIVISTIC LIMITING CASES.

In short,

  • Yes: General Invariance No: General Covariance
  • Yes: Frame Indifference No: Form Invariance
  • Yes: Newtonian/Euclidean Space and Time No: Minkowski Space-Time
  • Yes: Frame Indifferent Electromagnetic Theory that Covers Hertz-Heaviside Electrdynamics No: Maxwell-Minkowski Electrodynamics and General Relativity Theory
  • Yes: Principle of Material Frame Indifference No: Principle of General Space-Time Covariance

For my contributions on the subject matter please refer to the list of related published papers available at http://aburakpolat.com/research-papers-in-specific-areas/