{"id":533,"date":"2020-08-14T16:40:27","date_gmt":"2020-08-14T15:40:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/?p=533"},"modified":"2020-08-14T17:06:38","modified_gmt":"2020-08-14T16:06:38","slug":"on-the-necessity-and-sufficiency-of-poynting-vectors-motion-with-speed-of-light","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/2020\/08\/14\/on-the-necessity-and-sufficiency-of-poynting-vectors-motion-with-speed-of-light\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Necessity and Sufficiency of Poynting vector\u2019s motion with speed of light …"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On the Necessity and Sufficiency of Poynting vector\u2019s motion with speed of light for the existence of contrapuntal states observed in Wakefield experiments<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(see my earlier post: https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/2019\/09\/14\/wakefield-4-experiment-causal-picture-in-energy-current\/<\/a> and Ivor Catt’s original paper on Wakefield 1: http:\/\/www.ivorcatt.co.uk\/x343.pdf<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alex\nYakovlev<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

13 August\n2020<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main\nhypothesis is:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

H: EM\nenergy current in the form of ExH (aka Poynting vector) can only exist in\nmotion with a speed of light.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experiment:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider a\nWakefield experiment with a Tx Line that is initially discharged. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At time\nt=0, the TL is connected at point A (left-hand side) to a source 10V, where it\nis terminated with an open circuit. Point B is in the middle. Point C is at the\nright-hand side and is short-circuited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wakefield\nshows that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At point A\nwe have a square shape oscillation between +10V (half-time) and -10V\n(half-time).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At point C\nwe see no changes – completely discharged line at 0V.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At point B\nwe have the following cyclically repeated sequence of phases: (a) 0V (quarter\ntime), (b) +10 (quarter time), (c) 0V (quarter time), (d) -10V (quarter time).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A similar\nanalysis can be carried out with an initially charged TL which is\nshort-circuited at point A and is open-circuited at point C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experimental\nfact:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

W: We\nobserve contrapuntal effects in Wakefield, such as in Point B we have phases\n(a) and (c) where the cumulative effect of ExH field waves makes them look\nobservationally equivalent \u2013 at 0V, yet leading to different subsequent\nbehaviour, i.e. from (a) it goes to (b), and from (c) it goes to (d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nproposition:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

P: The contrapuntal\neffects that we observe in Wakefield hold if and only if ExH can only exist in\nmotion with a speed of light.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other\nwords, we state that W is true if and only if H holds, i.e. H is a necessary\nand sufficient condition for W.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proof:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sufficiency\n(H->W):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suppose H\nis true. We can then easily deduce that at every point in space A, B and C, the\nthe observed waveform will be as demonstrated by Wakefield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Ivor\u2019s website contains my prediction for Wakefield 3 with contrapuntal behaviour \u2013 the analysis was based on Ivor’s theory – i.e. hypothesis H, and it was correctly confirmed by the experiment. For details see: http:\/\/www.ivorcatt.co.uk\/x91cw34.htm<\/a> and http:\/\/www.ivorcatt.co.uk\/x842short.pdf<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Necessity\n(W->H, which is equivalent to not H -> not W):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suppose H\ndoes not hold, i.e. at some point in space and\/or in time, ExH is stationary or\ndoes not travel with speed of light. Let’s first look, say at point C. We see a\n“discharged state” \u2013 it corresponds to what we may call stationary\nstate electric field, i.e. E=0 \u2013 a discharged piece of TL. Here we can possibly\nsay that the voltage across it is constantly equal to 0 because at C it is\nshort-circuited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, we\nlook at point B at the time when the voltage level is equal to 0V, say in phase\n(c). We think it is a static E=0. Using the same argument as we did for point C.\nOne might argue that the point B is not short-circuited, but this does not\nmatter from the point of view of our observation \u2013 it\u2019s just 0V. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can we\npredict that after a specific and well-defined time interval, voltage at B will\ngo down to -10V and not up to +10V as it would have gone had we been in phase\n(a)? In other words, how can we distinguish the states in those two phases\nusing classical theory, where phase (a) is observationally equivalent to phase\n(c).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only\nway we could predict the real behaviour in W with classical theory if we had\nsome ADDITIONAL memory that would store information, in another object, that\nalthough we were stationary here in that place and time interval, we were\nactually being in transit between phases (b) and (d) rather than being in\ntransit between (d) and (b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact\nthat we need ADDITIONAL memory (another TL) is something that is outside the\nscope of our original model, because we did not have it organised in the first\nplace. So, there is no knowledge in the original model that will make us\ncertain that from phase (c) we will eventually and deterministically go to\nphase (d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q.E.D.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note:<\/strong> The above fact of having phases (a), (b), (c) and (d) is the result of the contrapuntal effect of the superposition of the partial actions performed by the steps moving in the right and left directions. And unless that motion was always (in time and in space) with a well-defined speed (speed of light), we would not be able to predict that from phase (c) we will definitely and only transition to phase (d) and not to phase (b) and how quickly that transition will happen. The case of a fully charged or fully discharged capacitor, with seemingly stationary E field, that is a contrapuntal effect of superposed motion of ExH in all directions, is just a special case of the TL. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remark from David Walton:<\/strong><\/p>

The only way we could predict the real behaviour in W with classical theory if we had some ADDITIONAL memory that would store information, in another object, that although we were stationary here in that place and time interval, we were actually being in transit between phases (b) and (d) rather than being in transit between (d) and (b).<\/span><\/p>

is the key point.  <\/p>

Another way to state the same thing in  different context and less formally (I think) is to point out that when two pulses travelling in opposite directions pass through each other either the B or E fields will cancel, hence demonstrating that the field cannot be the cause of the onward propagation of the em pulse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

My response:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s a great point you make. Indeed the absence of either B or E in the contrapuntal state disables us from the ability to talk about further propagation of the pulses.
Yes, the key point is the absence of memory about the dynamical process in the classical field model.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Illusions \u2026 How many we have every day because we don’t really know they are happening around us (not enough sensors or memory to track things).
The contrapuntal effects are those that H G Wells probably had in mind in the shape of the Invisible Man.  They blind us from reality …<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On the Necessity and Sufficiency of Poynting vector\u2019s motion with speed of light for the existence of contrapuntal states observed in Wakefield experiments (see my earlier post: https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/2019\/09\/14\/wakefield-4-experiment-causal-picture-in-energy-current\/ and Ivor Catt’s original paper on Wakefield 1: http:\/\/www.ivorcatt.co.uk\/x343.pdf) Alex Yakovlev 13 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4763,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,16,12,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-async-analog","category-causality","category-electromagnetism","category-general-interest"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4763"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=533"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/533\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":537,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/533\/revisions\/537"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alexyakovlev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}