Difference between revisions of "Refutation of Feynman's Derivation of the Lienard-Wiechert Potentials"
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
The so-called Lienard-Wiechert potentials constitute a fundamental part of basic electromagnetic theory. Through these potentials both the electric and the magnetic fields are accordingly derived, and in following steps Maxwell’s Equations may also be derived. Short-to-say, if succeeding in showing any fundamental fallacy in the derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert potentials, one could claim to have falsified whole Maxwell’s theory, a very important prerequisite if intending to pave the way for a radically new theory. Yet, the author does not intend to create a new theory of his own. Instead, at hand is an attempt to give credit to the far older theory than Maxwell’s, namely basically Coulomb’ s Law of 1785 (or Cavendish 1771).<br /> The author has earlier published a paper where this is done with respect to experiments performed upon Ampere’s Bridge in the early 1980´s. In this paper the focus is on the way retarded potentials are derived.<br /> The author succeeds in showing that Feynman in his derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert Potentials in the famous “Feynman’s Lectures on Physics” counts the same charge twice, hence attaining a wrong expression for the electric potential, provided one is using the very idea of potentials | The so-called Lienard-Wiechert potentials constitute a fundamental part of basic electromagnetic theory. Through these potentials both the electric and the magnetic fields are accordingly derived, and in following steps Maxwell’s Equations may also be derived. Short-to-say, if succeeding in showing any fundamental fallacy in the derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert potentials, one could claim to have falsified whole Maxwell’s theory, a very important prerequisite if intending to pave the way for a radically new theory. Yet, the author does not intend to create a new theory of his own. Instead, at hand is an attempt to give credit to the far older theory than Maxwell’s, namely basically Coulomb’ s Law of 1785 (or Cavendish 1771).<br /> The author has earlier published a paper where this is done with respect to experiments performed upon Ampere’s Bridge in the early 1980´s. In this paper the focus is on the way retarded potentials are derived.<br /> The author succeeds in showing that Feynman in his derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert Potentials in the famous “Feynman’s Lectures on Physics” counts the same charge twice, hence attaining a wrong expression for the electric potential, provided one is using the very idea of potentials | ||
| − | [[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|refutation feynman 's derivation lienard-wiechert potentials]] |
| − | [[Category:Electrodynamics]] | + | [[Category:Electrodynamics|refutation feynman 's derivation lienard-wiechert potentials]] |
Latest revision as of 19:52, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Refutation of Feynman\'s Derivation of the Lienard-Wiechert Potentials |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Jan Olof Jonson |
| Keywords | Lienard-Wiechert Potentials, Coulomb\'s law, retarded action effect, Ampere’s Bridge |
| Published | 2003 |
| Journal | Journal of New Energy |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | 3 |
| No. of pages | 4 |
| Pages | 42-44 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
The so-called Lienard-Wiechert potentials constitute a fundamental part of basic electromagnetic theory. Through these potentials both the electric and the magnetic fields are accordingly derived, and in following steps Maxwell’s Equations may also be derived. Short-to-say, if succeeding in showing any fundamental fallacy in the derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert potentials, one could claim to have falsified whole Maxwell’s theory, a very important prerequisite if intending to pave the way for a radically new theory. Yet, the author does not intend to create a new theory of his own. Instead, at hand is an attempt to give credit to the far older theory than Maxwell’s, namely basically Coulomb’ s Law of 1785 (or Cavendish 1771).
The author has earlier published a paper where this is done with respect to experiments performed upon Ampere’s Bridge in the early 1980´s. In this paper the focus is on the way retarded potentials are derived.
The author succeeds in showing that Feynman in his derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert Potentials in the famous “Feynman’s Lectures on Physics” counts the same charge twice, hence attaining a wrong expression for the electric potential, provided one is using the very idea of potentials
