## Recommended Posts

I have come up with a theory for electromagnetism, and what to share it with you here.

You can picture to yourself one dimension, in which one side is plus is and the other is minus. A particle has a certain property on this dimension, it can be plus, minus or neutral. When particles with similar signs come near each other they occupy one another's space on this dimension and repel each other. And when they have opposite signs they balance each other on the dimension and attract each other. This is the principle by which the electric force works. The certain charges of the particles and their symmetry (the electron has a certain electric charge, and the proton has the same charge only with an opposite sign, for example) come from the fact that this dimension is finite, and part of a triangle, The Triangle (That can be read about here - link removed by moderator ) , and so their presides a symmetry.

##### Share on other sites

So you're suggesting that electric charge is a 5th dimension that is neither space nor time?

##### Share on other sites

So you're suggesting that electric charge is a 5th dimension that is neither space nor time?

Possibly. I am not yet sure if this new dimension exists inside the conventional 3 dimensional space, or is a detached dimension on it's own. Something interesting to think about or research.

##### Share on other sites

We already have a very good theory for electromagnetism.

Why is this new hypothesis (its is not a theory) better?

Please show us ho you would use it to calculate the speed of light.

If it can't do that then it's not as good as the current theory based on Maxwells's work.

##### Share on other sites

We already have a very good theory for electromagnetism.

Why is this new hypothesis (its is not a theory) better?

Please show us ho you would use it to calculate the speed of light.

If it can't do that then it's not as good as the current theory based on Maxwells's work.

Are you talking about quantum electrodynamics ? I wouldn't say that theory really explains how electromagnetism works, it is more of a bunch of math.

##### Share on other sites

Um yeah that's kind of the point. The math covers the forces involved.

##### Share on other sites

The maths is used to make accurate falsifiable predictions of what happens in reality. Maths is required my modern physics to make accurate petitions.

##### Share on other sites

I have come up with a theory for electromagnetism, and what to share it with you here.

You can picture to yourself one dimension, in which one side is plus is and the other is minus. A particle has a certain property on this dimension, it can be plus, minus or neutral. When particles with similar signs come near each other they occupy one another's space on this dimension and repel each other. And when they have opposite signs they balance each other on the dimension and attract each other. This is the principle by which the electric force works. The certain charges of the particles and their symmetry (the electron has a certain electric charge, and the proton has the same charge only with an opposite sign, for example) come from the fact that this dimension is finite, and part of a triangle, The Triangle (That can be read about here - link removed by moderator ) , and so their presides a symmetry.

You have sci-fi movie vision of what "dimension" is..

"the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it"

Chess analogy:

Say you have chessboard,

there are 2 dimensions with 1st dimension 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 2nd dimension A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H possible coordinates.

If one would add yet another dimension to chessboard,

figures could move up and down. f.e. a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h possible values.

Figure at A1a would not beat/overlap figure at A1b.

With 2 dimensions A1 overlap A1 (without a and b in 3rd dimension).

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

Um yeah that's kind of the point. The math covers the forces involved.

The maths is used to make accurate falsifiable predictions of what happens in reality. Maths is required my modern physics to make accurate petitions.

Having correct math is nice and all in it's own aspect, but I don't think it alone is enough, I think a simple explanation that can be used in words with no math is also needed, for example if you want to explain it to kids in school.

I am not a mathematician, and do not yet know the math involved in my theory, it could also be correct.

##### Share on other sites

Possibly. I am not yet sure if this new dimension exists inside the conventional 3 dimensional space, or is a detached dimension on it's own. Something interesting to think about or research.

Why do you think this would be more interesting than the possibility that, if you learned the math, you might understand and accept that our current mainstream theory is the best explanation?

##### Share on other sites

...I think a simple explanation that can be used in words with no math is also needed,

This is called an interpretation - some 'wordy' description of a mathematical framework or calculation.

for example if you want to explain it to kids in school.

This is a different question.

I am not a mathematician, and do not yet know the math involved in my theory, it could also be correct.

This is backwards. A theory is a mathematical model and then one can build interpretations.

##### Share on other sites

Having correct math is nice and all in it's own aspect, but I don't think it alone is enough, I think a simple explanation that can be used in words with no math is also needed, for example if you want to explain it to kids in school.

I am not a mathematician, and do not yet know the math involved in my theory, it could also be correct.

!

Moderator Note

Without math, it's going to be hard to make specific predictions. You need to come up with a way that your idea can be tested in a falsifiable way. How can it be tested?

##### Share on other sites

Are you talking about quantum electrodynamics ? I wouldn't say that theory really explains how electromagnetism works, it is more of a bunch of math.

Actually I was talking about the much simpler classical one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light

It allows you to calculate the speed of light from electrical measurements without actually measuring light.

That indicates that it has some fundamental"reality" to it (because, if you do the calculation and make the measurements you get the same answer either way)

can your idea do anything like that?

What advantage(s) can you find for your idea?

Does it make verifiable predictions?

Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories?

If it can't do that sort of thing, what use is it?

...

I am not a mathematician, and do not yet know the math involved in my theory, it could also be correct.

As I said; you do not have a theory- you have a guess.

##### Share on other sites

Actually I was talking about the much simpler classical one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light

It allows you to calculate the speed of light from electrical measurements without actually measuring light.

That indicates that it has some fundamental"reality" to it (because, if you do the calculation and make the measurements you get the same answer either way)

can your idea do anything like that?

What advantage(s) can you find for your idea?

Does it make verifiable predictions?

Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories?

If it can't do that sort of thing, what use is it?

As I said; you do not have a theory- you have a guess.

My idea isn't about light it is about how the electric force works. And vice versa maxwell's theories do not directly explain how the electric force works, they explain how light "works", which is neat on it's own, using electromagnetism.

Again, I do not know yet how to approach my idea mathematically, maybe the correct math of it will yield interesting results.

"Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories?"

Yes, it explains how the electric, and further on the magnetic forces work, which other theories do not.

Quantum electrodynamics tries to do this, but ends up in a total mess.

##### Share on other sites

My idea isn't about light it is about how the electric force works. And vice versa maxwell's theories do not directly explain how the electric force works, they explain how light "works", which is neat on it's own, using electromagnetism.

Maxwells' equations explain electric fields and how a changing electric field produces magnetic forces, and vice versa.

They do this quantitatively, producing useful results that are used by technology (e.g. the design of motors, dynamos or transformers). You vague idea doesn't (and, as far as I can can see, can't) do anything like that. It appears to be entirely useless.

##### Share on other sites

Maxwells' equations explain electric fields and how a changing electric field produces magnetic forces, and vice versa.

They do this quantitatively, producing useful results that are used by technology (e.g. the design of motors, dynamos or transformers). You vague idea doesn't (and, as far as I can can see, can't) do anything like that. It appears to be entirely useless.

His equations bring out the math of electromagnetism, they do not explain how it works literally. What he did explain (in words), is how light "works". Which was a milestone in explanatory physics.

General relativity explains how gravitation works, in words not just in math, also a milestone in explanatory physics, while Newton's laws bring out the math of it, without actually understanding how the force works. Einstein tried to form a theory about electromagnetism, to explain it like he did gravitation, but from I understand was unsuccessful, and then came QED. Which in my view does not explain how electromagnetism works either.

You need to differentiate between the math and the explanation in words of the system in hand. A good theory needs both, like general relativity.

##### Share on other sites

A good theory needs both, like general relativity.

I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means, nor how science works.

His equations bring out the math of electromagnetism, they do not explain how it works literally.

They explain how it works very precisely. I don't know what "they do not explain how it works literally" means.

How can Maxwells equations explain something perfectly but not explain it?

What he did explain (in words), is how light "works".

He explained how light "works", by means of equations. Those equations can be described in words. And therefore the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields can also be described in words.

Therefore, your earlier comment

And vice versa maxwell's theories do not directly explain how the electric force works

is obviously wrong.

His mathematics (and therefore the "words") describes light, electric fields and magnetic fields equally well.

You need to differentiate between the math and the explanation in words of the system in hand.

Yes, the difference is that the maths is the theory and the words aren't.

##### Share on other sites

"Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories?"

Yes, it explains how the electric, and further on the magnetic forces work, which other theories do not.

The problem is, with words you often get to a point where your explanation only makes sense to you, and that's when you should be able to show math to explain it more plainly to anyone who still doesn't understand. Your mistake is assuming the words should be more important. They aren't. They fail. They can be misinterpreted. They're imprecise. They're often subjective.

The math involved in electromagnetic theory works and works very well. It provides the most precise language to explain the phenomena. It's no wonder you think something is missing from current theory to give it explanatory power. Your mistake is in assuming it's not the math like everyone's telling you. It's the math. The math is what you're missing that would let everything drop into place for you. You said it yourself, you're having trouble explaining what you mean, and there should be a better way to do that. It's the math.

You're reminding me of a very old joke -

Man 1: "Excuse me, you look familiar. What's your name?"

Man 2: "Henry."

Man 1: "No, that's not it."

##### Share on other sites

I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means, nor how science works.

That applies to almost the all users making threads in Speculation forum...

So maybe some native English speaker would make thread and pin it "What scientific theory does mean".. etc.

How to make measurements.. how to verify equations are correct during experiments, etc.

##### Share on other sites

...

Yes, it explains how the electric, and further on the magnetic forces work, which other theories do not.

...

It "explains " them in terms of some sort of "dimensions"- which are not explained.

It's as much use as saying "light works the way it does because of the thingyness of the whatsit.".

You don't end up with a better understanding,

Sensei:

Good idea about explaining what a theory is.

These people have done it much better than I could

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

##### Share on other sites

You need to differentiate between the math and the explanation in words of the system in hand. A good theory needs both, like general relativity.

Again, you are confusing the notion of a theory and a pedagogical interpretation.

Just saying that 'space-time curvature is gravity' is not enough for anyone to calculate with and make predictions.

One can try to say something similar with the electromagnetic theory - we have connections and curvature as we do in general relativity, but the geometry is not 'simply' that of space-time. The mathematical framework for electromagnetism seems a bit less easy to imagine and so the 'rubber sheet' analogy is not used.

My idea isn't about light it is about how the electric force works.

Okay, but the light and the electromagnetic force are not really separate things - Maxwell's equations tell us this.

And vice versa maxwell's theories do not directly explain how the electric force works, they explain how light "works", which is neat on it's own, using electromagnetism.

Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz equation tell us everything about classical electromagnetism - including light and how test particles move in an electromagnetic field.

Edited by ajb
##### Share on other sites

Electromagnetism is very enteresting because it is complex and yet holds certain symmetries, making it also simple. Not as simple as gravitation, which is basically large objects pulling each other towards each other. Electromagnetism is a bit more complex yet is also very symmetrical, for example the similar charges of the electron and proton, with opposite signs of course. There is something in the nature of things that causes all this, and I think it also deserves some kind of simple explanation to go with it.

##### Share on other sites

Electromagnetism is very enteresting because it is complex and yet holds certain symmetries, making it also simple.

You need to be careful here, I am not sure if you are trying to be technical here or not. In particular, what symmetries are you talking of? (there are several that are very important)

Not as simple as gravitation, which is basically large objects pulling each other towards each other.

Yes, that is what we tell children in infants school. But there is a lot more to gravity that just this statement.

Also, we tell children in infants school that electrically charged objects attract or repel.

... and I think it also deserves some kind of simple explanation to go with it.

You might have to except that simple explanations are not particularly useful and may not be easy to find.

##### Share on other sites

There is something in the nature of things that causes all this, and I think it also deserves some kind of simple explanation to go with it.

If you are interested in understanding it then why not do some kind of physics course?

PS EE - I saw one of those little bugs in a box toys the other day, you know, where the legs go crazy - I thought it would be perfect for your telepathy experiments, you could ignore the fact that the legs just move anyway and claim it as telepathy. win.

Edited by DrP
##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

The requirement for a discussion of this sort in speculations is a model of some kind, and/or falsifiable predictions. If these are not forthcoming, the thread will be closed.

##### Share on other sites This topic is now closed to further replies.
×