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. A physical quantity is generally defined as any quantity that has a unit in, say MKS or CGS system. This is a useless description. Any physical quantity must be associated with conservation laws. Most basic ones are mass, charge and force. In that regard, position and time are NOT physical quantities, they are only mathematical tools to describe any physical mechanism. The (3+1)D notation to describe four dimensional space is also meaningless. It is just 4D !.
• Velocity and acceleration, which are derived in terms of metric and time, are therefore NOT physical quantities, either.
• Derivation of a new physical quantity by multiplying with a nonphysical quantity does not alter the nature of the mentioned 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, 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 electrical field with velocity. This is only one example to realize that Special Relativity is physically unsupported. Electrical and magnetic fields have DIFFERENT natures and origins. 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 when it starts to move.
• 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.

• Convection currents mean material displacement. Therefore they are not included in what I understand from electromagnetics of stationary media described by Maxwell's Equations. They only appear properly in the context of Frame Indifferent Theory of Electromagnetism
• Including convection currents in Maxwell's equations of stationary media always yields physically unsupported results. A common mistake is the belief that static sources in motion radiate electromagnetic energy. What happens is that the field lines follow the arbitrary motion of the source as a whole, without any deformation in shape. An example is the description of electromagnetism of a static charge in motion by Lienard-Wiechert potentials. Another one is the generation of a 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 a magnetic field. It is just a circulation of static electric field lines in space.
• 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
• I avoid any contradicting alternative theory for moving bodies (especially Special and General Theories of Relavity) in the context of macroscobic electromagnetism.
• It should not be forgotten that Lorents Transformations do not yield Galilean Transformations exactly in the limiting case when 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 not in a position to utilize any mathematical tool and physical quantity or law devised in Classical Continuum Physics in Euclidean 4D Space in describing any physical mechanism. This includes claiming the classical Faraday's Law and Doppler Effect to be erronous.
• When Maxwell's Equations are in consideration, relativistic theories are unnecessary, insufficient and incorrect as they suggest results that contradict with well established experiments in the context of Electrical Engineering.
• 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

• In that regard if a relativistic improvement of Frame Indifferent Electromagnetics would ever be required, say in cosmological scale, then I believe it must be constructed in a way as to yield 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/