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 has a specific unit in a given unit system (such as MKS or CGS system). This is a useless description. "Physical" quantities are only those described via conservation laws. Mass, charge and force are such examples. In that regard, position and time are NOT physical quantities, they are only mathematical tools to describe a physical mechanism. The (3+1)D notation to describe four dimensional space is also meaningless since space and time are equivalent functionally. It is just 4D Space !.
• Velocity and acceleration, which are derived in terms of metric and time, are therefore NOT physical quantities, either.
• The nature of a physical quantity cannot change (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 mean 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 substantial) derivate for constant velocity field and Oldroyd (aka comoving time) derivative for an arbitrary velocity vector field. The presence of convection currents in Ampere-Maxwell's Law functions same as conduction currents that radiate electromagnetic waves. Let us give two common examples: 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). Actually, this mechanism does not generate any magnetic field. One only observes the circulation of static electric field lines (flux) in space.
• 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! :-)
• 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. 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. The origin of these theories does not stem from the so called experimental proofs of unpresence of aether in the second half of 19th century, but lies in the fact Einstein was not able to fully grasp Hertzian Electrodynamics due to lack of analytical background.
• 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

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

Let me sum up:

1) 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. YES, EINSTEIN DID NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE MISINTERPRETED ASYMMETRY IN ELECTROMAGNETISM IN HIS FAMOUS 2005 PAPER. HE TURNED PHYSICS INTO A BLIEF SYSTEM WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE "MAIN STREAM" THAT BELIEVED HIM, AND SO MUCH PAIN AND STRUGGLE FOR THE RATIONAL "DISSIDENTS" WHO STOOD AGAINST THIS CHURCH. 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. HOWEVER, IF A RELATIVISTIC IMPROVEMENT OF FRAME INDIFFERENT ELECTROMAGNETICS WOULD EVER BE REQUIED ONE DAY, THE ONLY WAY IS TO DO IT IS TO CONSTRUCT A THEORY THAT YIELDS THE FRAME INDIFFERENT FIELD EQUATIONS EXACTLY IN THE NONRELATIVISTIC LIMITING CASES.

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/