People often talk about Hall effect as being an artefact of the interaction of the flow of electrons (aka electric current) in a metal plate with an external magnetic field, which causes (as an effect of Lorentz force) a potential difference created between the longitidal sides of the plate.

See for example, this site for the description of the Hall Effect:

https://electricalfundablog.com/hall-effect-principle-history-theory-explanation-mathematical-expressions-applications/

I have had a look at the Hall effect and tried to scribble some rough picture in terms of Energy Current.

The story requires 3 dimensions x-y-z, and it is clear that the superposition of energy currents caused by the battery (where we don’t see the H aspect), and magnet (where we don’t see E) aspect, ends up in the cumulative energy current moving in the direction xy, while H is pointed in yz and E in xz, so no wonder that its projection on z is non-zero (this is the potential difference that is measured between plates 2).

The same effect is when the boat is moving from the wind, part of which is tangential, or plane lifts up despite the initial equilibrium between its weight and the counteraction of the ground.

The trick is to create a superposition and turn the direction of the field by ‘blowing’ perpendicular energy current.

All these effects like Hall’s are just special cases of contrapuntal effects on the field from superposition of different energy currents.

As usual Occam’s razor wins!

There is a lot of resistance amongst engineers and scientists to believing that the physics of electromagnetic signals and dynamic processes involving such signals is NOT based on sine waves. There is so much in engineering that has been and is still being invested into the mathematics and tools supporting harmonics based analytics and design activities of thousands of engineers. Equally, thousands of academics are teaching hundreds of thousands of electrical engineering students all this on and on.

But let’s think what we can learn from nature that communicates signals from one point in space to another point and does it in a most frugal and at the same time prodigal way.

Imagine that we need to send a signalling event from point A to point B in space. This clearly involves some sort of motion. What kinds of motions we know. Well, at least two. One directional – that would be, for our example, moving along a straight line between A and B. Another type of motion we know rotational. This latter one should go if there is a point in the circle or sphere around which the notion can revolve. So, if the signal event involves the change in say electric field E and magnetic field H, we know that their vector product ExH forms Poynting vector, which shows the direction of the signal propagation. This propagation can only happen at speed of light in the medium (as there has been no evidence of otherwise!). If the direction of the vectors E and H is not changing in time at point A, our signal, defined by the Poynting vector ExH, will travel from point A to point B directly, albeit, this direction may not be straight line as it may be determined by the surrounding environment’s properties of epsilon and mu. So, for example if that environment is a transmission line (TL) formed by two metallic plates, then the Poynting vector will travel in the direction defined by the TL.

Now, if E and H elements of the vector are steps, then clearly these steps will form pulses, both in time and space. Now if for example these components of the vector are themselves in the rotational motion, and this rotation of E and H happens with a particular frequency omega, then the phase of the rotation omega*time will form an instantaneous value of the angle whose sine and cosine will determine the value of the potential produced, say, by the E component, between the plates of the TL. Unfold this rotation of vector E in space in the direction of the propagation of the Poyning vector, and you get a spiral – which is a superposition of the rotational and directional motions. The projection of this spiral on the normal plane along the Poynting vector’s direction will give us a sine-wave for E, likewise a cosine-wave for H. Hence rotational shift of 90 degrees will manifest itself as a longitudal phase shift of 90 degrees.

So, to summarise, the sine-wave is a product of a combined effect of a rotational motion and longitudal motion. But what’s important is that this sine-wave has a clear point of the start and end, and it’s not being there as a fundamental element. It is a mathematical trace of the superposition of fundamental elements of motion.

Another possible source of sine-waves is a successive oscillation of step-wise process in the longitudal direction, between two points. This is something that we have already discussed in earlier blogs, where we talked about the physical processes of propagation of energy current in transmission lines. Indeed if we connect a TL which has an open circuit end with the TL which is short circuited end, we have the effect of C and L combined, and the process of reflection of the energy current in this system, will form a series of steps which can be approximated by a sine-wave. Again, the sin-wave is a mathematical product of more primitive physical process.

In my recent email exchange with a group of people arguing with Ivor Catt about the primal nature of sine-waves, I wrote:

“Mechanics tells us there are two basic motion types. Direct and rotation around a point. If we assume that ExH can follow both, the latter for example, under the influence of another force (gravity?), can help us the express the effect of “corkscrew propagation”, and hence spatio temporal sinewaves. Actually a corkscrew or spiral is a good explanation of an AC shaped energy current around a wire. Light can propagate from its source in myriads of corkscrews by the way! ”

“By the way a corkscrew-like propagation of signal (hence, information) via a medium with natural resistance or friction (usual epsilon and mu properties) would be most effective, again from mechanical analogy point of view. Nature, again, following Occam’s razor principle, would do it the same way we penetrate into a cork or a wall, and that’s what nature would always do if it needs to pass information from one point to another! Energy current screws up everything! Ha-ha!”

I also recommend to someone who wishes to visualise these corkscrew processes to have a look at these wonderful videos on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCxXPTtQFm4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

Ed Delian wrote today to Ivor Catt:

You ask me what happens inside an indivisible particle? “How does the particle’s right hand edge know of a collision of the left hand edge”? The answer is: Since it is an indivisible particle, there is no space for a “signal” to “travel” inside from “here” to “there” in order to transfer information. The whole indivisible particle as a continuum (!)  “knows” what its edges experience, all at the same time.

I responded:

Dear Ed,

Starting the discussion of electromagnetism or even gravity with particles, which are indivisible in one sense or another, is fraught with many problems and issues sticking out that seems impossible to put in order. This is especially problematic if one needs to explain the phenomenon of passing information in digital systems.

That’s why Ivor and us following his views propose to begin with the simple and clear foundational concept of energy current that travels and can only do so with a speed of light in the medium. 

The medium is naturally resistive to this motion, in a manner analogous to friction. These two properties of the medium is the only assumptions we need to make (this “minimalism” is justified by the natural tendency of nature to follow the Occam’s razor principle, as well as experimental facts). The other basic assumption is that nature has different mediums occupying fragments of space and thus has boundary conditions, between which we have no instantaneous action because those boundaries involve distances. So, any particles are the result of the division of space between boundaries, in which energy current is trapped. These entrapments are often ‘leaky’ which allows energy current not just be confined within these particles (due to reflections) but also travel outside the particles and this create levels of interaction. So this way we have elements of mass formed with nonzero volume.

Now, states or levels of the energy current density that are inside and outside those fragments of the mediums form something that traditionalists prefer to called fields, and they can be associated with forces, electromagnetic and gravitational.

So, clearly, talking about particles is possible but not at the fundamental level of passing information in nature.

Kind regards

Alex

Today, I asked some people interested in Electromagnetics the following question:

Harry, All:

Do you have a clear idea how the values of epsilon and mu are obtained/measured for mediums? Are they obtained from measuring the velocity of light in the medium and from measuring the characteristic impedance of the medium, and then solving the two equations for c and Z0? 

Alex

Harry Ricker’s reply was:

Alex,
No! Do you?
Harry

Followed by me:

No, I don’t, Harry. What I see on wiki is a sort of dead circle. Plus it involves the use of electron charge and other constants.Alex

Then Harry continued as follows:

Alex,
Regarding your second question. If we are talking about SI units, they are defined units. The mu is defined and  then the epsilon is defined by using the velocity of light. The ratio is the velocity of light. I think the definitions were established so as to keep the previous definitions of the ohm voltage and current. Frankly I am not up on this. My view is that free space impedance ought to be 1 ohm and the rest of the units based on that. But that is only my opinion. 
The subject of units and measurement is very highly specialized and is fixed based upon international treaties. That has a long history behind it. The main idea being to try to keep the common units in use the same while bringing in new definitions of units based upon more stable reference standards. 
I am sure you know more about this than I do.
Harry

And this has led me to proposing the idea of establishing some precedence order between various key notions in Electromagnetics:

Harry,

I agree units and measurements are connected. But, putting various notions of constants and parameters, such as epsilon and mu ‘on the table’ along with c and Z0, as well as electron charge, etc, could be done in some order of precedence, and that precedence could be aligned with the order in which the relevant physical notions are put into theory. 

The latter (order of precedence of physical notions) should follow (at least) two key principles:

– experimental evidence, and

– Occam’s razor.

Perhaps also some basic geometric relationship of space and time, such as velocity will need to be used as a guide.

I don’t want to get deeper into natural philosophy here. But, to me, Ivor’s notion of energy current being most fundamental in EM, which has the two key attributes, the velocity of light (or generally, of EM energy current) and impedance (analogous to some sort of viscosity or friction, or some counter-action to progressive action) is most natural, and meets the above principles. So, the order of precedence seems to originate in first having c and Z0, which can be measured by existing equipment, is also natural. Those are then split into two principal components, epsilon and mu, which are in some sense are more primary if we talk about Electrical and Magnetic as the two key aspects of Electromag. So from the experimental point of view our “Adam and Eve” are c and Z0, which we can measure. From the theory point of view, our “Adam and Eve” are epsilon and mu.

That’s how I see it to myself in some logical order.

Alex