Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

James Bowery: on 12/1/15 at 6:05am UTC, wrote "In the Grip of the Distant Universe: The Science of Inertia" describes...

James Bowery: on 12/1/15 at 6:02am UTC, wrote The experiments are based on: "Detection of the Time-dependent...

Neal Graneau: on 10/29/15 at 23:04pm UTC, wrote I am curious to know what experiments you are performing

James Bowery: on 10/25/15 at 14:38pm UTC, wrote Our experiments, not designed to investigate this matter, incidentally show...

Michel Planat: on 4/20/15 at 20:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Neal, It is quite strange that only a few participants looked at your...

Gary Simpson: on 4/16/15 at 22:29pm UTC, wrote Neal, If you have not done so, please take a look at my essay. I would be...

Akinbo Ojo: on 4/14/15 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Neal, Thanks for your comments on my forum. I raised some issues here...

Joe Fisher: on 4/10/15 at 14:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Neil, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: When is a Field Theory not a Field Theory? by Neal Graneau [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Neal Graneau wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 20:55 GMT
Essay Abstract

In 2500 years of physical science, only two matter interaction paradigms have come to light, namely field theory and instantaneous action at a distance (IAAAD). While the current physics paradigm is considered to comprise a host of field theories, it is shown here that field theories can never be subjected to the scientific method as rigorously as IAAAD theories. In addition, the IAAAD electrodynamics of the 19th century was unjustifiably discarded and yet explained all of the electrodynamic phenomena known at that time and made amazing predictions which have been proved accurate although now given field theory explanation. It is shown that the current electromagnetic field theory is incapable of explaining the longitudinal component of electromagnetic force observed in flexible circuits as well as the energy transfer mechanism in induction motors and actually in all electro-mechanical circuits. The mathematics of IAAAD physics is shown to be the stepping stone required to overcome the human mental resistance to IAAAD spookiness and the possibility of a return to a IAAAD paradigm is explored.

Author Bio

Dr. Neal Graneau has been working in the field of Instantaneuous Action At A Distance (IAAAD) electromagnetism for over 30 years. He has worked with his father Dr. Peter Graneau on this subject and together co-authored 3 books and 20 papers on the mathematics and experimental verification of IAAAD theories from electrodynamics to inertia. He has spent more than 10 years investigating the efficient liberation of stored bond energy from liquids by electrodynamic and electrostatic force as a route to renewable energy electricity generation. He currently heads up the high current pulsed power research team at AWE in the UK

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 22:05 GMT
Neal,

Many thanks for an excellent read.

I assume that you are aware that Maxwell allegedly used quaternions in his original work and that there was an ugly debate regarding Hamilton vs Riemann from 1890 until 1895 with quaternions essentially being banished.

You should read the essay here by Dr Thomas Erwin Phipps. He makes reference to the same longitudal force that you mention. A measureable effect is difficult to ignore. If there is a measurable longitudal force, does this imply that there are longitudal waves in addition to transverse waves?

You should expect to be viciously attacked in the forum, but there are so many new entries and there is so little time remaining for voting that you might get off easy. Also, I think that Dr Klingman has managed to tire them out so to speak.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neal Graneau replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 23:45 GMT
Hello Gary,

Thank you for your supportive comments. I have deliberately avoided as much of the technical mathematical debate including quaternions and other devices for both brevity and my belief that field theory can create mathematics ad infinitum because it cannot be severely tested.

I have seen Dr. Phipps' essay here and in fact it is what inspired me to assemble my thoughts and present them here. To answer your question, the Ampere longitudinal force represents an instantaneous action over a distance without the requirement of an intervening medium or field and thus has nothing to do with waves, transverse or longitudinal.

I always look forward to vibrant debate in this and all other forums.

Regards

Neal Graneau

Bookmark and Share



Jose P. Koshy wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 13:15 GMT
Dear Dr. Neal Graneau,

I have always wondered how the physicists adopted the field theory. The concept of light as 'fields carrying energy' is nonsense. The independent existence of fields goes against common sense. Now they say that bodies exist as field and particle at the same instant, there is a mass-giving field/particle and so on. Let us see where they take us. A return to 'action at a distance' is inevitable.

In this conncetion, I invite your attention to the theory proposed by me, refer: finitenesstheory.com. It follows the classical Newtonian style with some amendments: (i). Motion at speed 'c' is the basic property of matter (ii). Force is reaction to motion. Force being reaction to motion simply exists, and does not require any medium for interaction to take place; force existing does not imply energy transfer. The forces always remain completely used, and attractive and repulsive forces (energy acts as pseudo repulsive force) remain balanced.

I argue for 'physicalism' in place of 'mathematicalism'. Field theory is, in fact, a mathematicalist idea, and is incorrect. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neal Graneau replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 13:23 GMT
Hello Jose,

I am very glad you seem to understand the logic I was trying to express regarding the untestability of field theory, leading to the question of why do we waste our time with such theories.

Regarding your interesting debate between physicalism and mathematicalism, I enjoyed reading your essay, but I don't think one has to take such a hard line arguing either for one or the other. I think that physical understanding and the fitting of mathematics to controlled experiment should run hand in hand. If the two are deviating, then one must examine whether it is the mathematics or the experiment that is most likely to be in error and then design a better experiment or find a new mathematical theory and stress test it hard.

I think many of the problems we face in modern physics that you describe in your essay as "the present deadlock" stem from the fact that physicists let slip the principle of CONTROLLED laboratory experiment. This is not a new problem and started in around the 1880's with Hertz's claim of finding EM waves when all he actually found was nodes of activity and inactivity in his laboratory. We are now lost in the miasma of trying to find mathematics to fit the unfalsifiable theories of of Maxwell-Einstein EM field theory and GR and somehow make them philosophically united with inherently non-local QM.

I would argue that one should not be too hard on mathematicalism. For instance I don't think I have a physical understanding of how distant objects store mutual potential energy and exert instantaneous forces on each other, but I am happy to have a mathematical theory that works for the time being. However both pictures are bound to change with time and new experiments. So let's accept that all of our physical and mathematical theories are human and fallible and it is great sport in forums such as this to compare which are the most relevant at any time.

Regards

Neal

Bookmark and Share


Jose P. Koshy replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 07:11 GMT
Dear Neal Graneau,

As stated by you, you have a mathematical relation that explains the mutual interaction between bodies remaining at a distance. From that you arrive at a conclusion that there is action at a distance. Without physical understanding, that problem remains unsolved. That is your stand, and I agree with it. The problem occurs only when you state that 'the mathematical explanation is enough', 'physical understanding is not required'. By mathematicalism, I mean such an approach.

Does action at a distance need be instantaneous? Action is instantaneous only when distance is zero; when two bodies collide, the action and the reaction are instantaneous. To take 'c' as the limit for the speed with which a body can act, we need not require SR or GR, just an assumption (that 'c' is the speed limit) is required. For example, I propose that motion at speed 'c' is the fundamental property of matter, and so any body made up of matter will not move faster than light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chidi Idika wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 07:45 GMT
Hello Neal,

Interesting thoughts. Permit me to quote you perhaps extensively:

“There is a very important difference between the IAAAD and field theory paradigms. IAAAD theories predict that the interactions and forces between physical objects are directly observable and are therefore subject to the falsifiability tests required by the scientific method. In contrast, field theories...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neal Graneau replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 15:03 GMT
Hello Chidi,

Thank you for your comments. I think the problem you raise highlights that thinking alone will never allow us to distinguish whether IAAAD or field theories are more likely to be true. We must rely on laboratory CONTROLLED experiments to give us the physical facts and in most cases, both types of theory will make equally accurate predictions. Therefore we must search hard for any experiments that allow us to distinguish between the best IAAAD and field theories of the day. It turns out that there are a few such experiments, namely highlighting the EM longitudinal force and the failure of current field theory to explain mechanical energy transfer in electric motors. These are described in my essay. At the moment, these can only be explained by an IAAAD model, but if a new and better field model were to be proposed that could account for these effects better than the IAAAD one, then we must accept it. In the case of two equivalent models, we must always opt for the IAAAD as it will always be the one more scrupulously testable because it does not attribute unmeasurable properties to undetectable substances. I like your insistence on finding a system of inquiry "truly without presumptions".

Regards

Neal

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Erwin Phipps wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 17:53 GMT
Congratulations on a superb essay. I am convinced that in IAAAD you have hold of the key to proper understanding of the physical world.



Unfortunately, I have been able to give field theory an unearned lease on life by getting the field equations to contain a force law that boasts a longitudinal component in addition to the accepted Lorentz law's transverse component. (See the math endnote 2 of my essay submitted in this contest, or else see my paper "Invariant Physics" in the latest Physics Essays.)

I regret this faux pas. I can offer only the mitigation that nobody is reading my stuff, so it seems I will be able to leave this world without actually having done much harm.

Best, Tom Phipps

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Neal Graneau wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 15:44 GMT
Hello Tom,

Thank you for your encouraging comments and conviction in the IAAAD interpretation of physics.

The only thing I would take issue with is your conviction that your proposed term involving a current element and the gradient of the vector potential is a field equation. What you have presented is simply an IAAAD way of expressing the Ampere force as done in the 1830's by Neumann who developed the concept of the vector potential, A, precisely so that its gradient was equal to the Ampere force. He also demonstrated that if you take the derivitive with respect to time rather than space you recover the laws of transformer and dynamo induction. You have advanced the theory a step by including Weber's IAAAD reasoning regarding the motion of individual charges (qv) rather than simply discussing the lumped current element parameter (I dl) as used by Ampere and Neumann. So your proposed term is thoroughly IAAAD and represents the Ampere force.

Maxwell's theory expressed in his treatise of 1873 was a mixed bag of IAAAD and field theory which is why nobody uses it today. However, it was Heaviside and the Maxwellians in the 1880's who overtly and without physical justification, dropped the vector potential and created the truly field theory that is accepted today. The equation (B=curlA) may ambiguously relate B and A, but it certainly does not make A a field quantity as it has no role in the Poynting vector which is the experimentally invalidated energy transfer mechanism that nevertheless lies at the heart of modern EM field theory.

So I hope everybody is "reading your stuff" as you have already and are continuing to add clarity to the mixed up world of physics in which we choose dabble for fun and frustration.

Regards

Neal

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Erwin Phipps wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 18:27 GMT
I completely agree with you about field theory. It is nature's mistake. Still, I think it is not so bad as the current adding-on of a Lorentz force law makes it. One should not have to add any force law to the field equations, because the field quantities should be fully defined by those equations, and the field quantities themselves are defined as forces -- so whence an extra force law? It's an elementary mistake. In other words, bah, humbug.

But my alternative threatens the whole structure of covariance, hence of relativity -- so I do not expect to win many converts. I am immensely pleased that you see some merit in my view, enough to consider carrying on to a better understanding of what I am perceiving as the field theoretical version of longitudinal forces. I wish I were young and vigorous enough to do the job, but I am not.

I would like to do away with fields entirely and get back to IAAAD, which I see as the only hope for Newton's third law and much else. Good luck to you, Neal. I see you as the world's chief hope for that kind of physics progress.

Best, Tom Phipps

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 21:10 GMT
Dear Neal Graneau,

Yours is a very interesting essay. Perhaps I simply have not given enough thought to the concept of 'instantaneous action at a distance' [IAAAD] but the thought that I have given it stalls out at the apparent inability for anything in the universe to actually 'happen' if any change in anything is immediately "transmitted" [?] to the ends of the universe, and the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neal Graneau replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 23:23 GMT
Hello Edwin,

You are very astute to express concern regarding how an IAAAD model in which every particle in the universe is continually interacting with every other can avoid a locking up stasis. The small amount of modelling I have done so far has revealed the following important point. Even though all of the force interactions are equal and opposite, in general they are acting between...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



alex hammond wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Dr Graneau,

Congratulations on a very interesting and concise summary of your ideas.

Inherently I tend to favour theories that find mathematical support to the observed phenomena as opposed to where science tries to find observational proof to previously derived equations. In the second case mathematics often requires inclusion of certain assumptions. However when subsequent observations are found to agree with mathematical postulates, the fact that assumptions had to be made in the first place tend to be forgotten, and as a consequence, after a while these assumptions can transmogrify into accepted hard facts. Thus any unexpected outcomes tend to be ignored or discounted without rigorous retesting of the original theories or assumptions.

I am prepared to accept that I must adjust my preferences as computing and technological advances mean that validity of most assumptions can be explored in detail. In fact, available computational power means that one should be able to run a routine for investigating interactions of a small number of elements in relation to a totality of forces predicted by competing theories. Field vs IAAAD, round ten?

I wish you all the best in this competition.

Regards

Alexander Hammond

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear Neal,

Well done on your thought provoking essay. I think with Dr Phipps' essay, it ranks among the top ten for lovers of a restoration of correctness in our physics. I have noted your other commentaries to questions above. Also quite reasonable.

While urging that you continue your great work on the mathematics of IAAAD, I wish to draw your attention to another aspect which is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 18:26 GMT
Your projection is as good as your paradigm! :)

With regards,

- Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 01:48 GMT
Neal,

This is an interesting challenge to looking at EM theory in the conventional way. I've heard of such issues before, especially about the supposed longitudinal field component and (Feynman's discussion is great) the oddities of the Poynting vector: making it seem that energy enters wire circuits perpendicularly! Altho not convinced that any alternative theory is correct, I do admire the courage and creativity to take on orthodoxy. I wonder what you think of 1. the Jefimenko equations for "projected fields", which give the same result as Maxwell's, but from a completely different (not local) perspective and 2. the "Marinov Motor" as discussed e.g. in Analog by Jeff Kooistra (from whom I also heard of things like longitudinal fields and the "exploding wire" experimental support for such fields.) BTW, how are exploding wires explained conventionally? In any case, your essay is underrated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:30 GMT
Dear Neil,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear Neal,

Thanks for your comments on my forum. I raised some issues here above on your forum that you can give some thought and reply before competition closes. I am eager to see this as I am not sure this will be available thereafter.

It appears this great and interesting work of IAAAD is being done without the D. That is, the drama of 'action at a distance' between massive objects or charges is being acted without any involvement of Mr. Distance itself in the action/ proceedings. My proposition is supposing Mr Distance is the major participant in the drama? If that be the case, something about a Negative and a Positive charge, may make Mr. Distance to shrink giving us the picture of attraction at a distance. Likewise something about Like charges may make Mr Distance to multiply or elongate giving the picture of repulsion.

The advantage of this 'crazy' model if found correct include;

- Nothing is actually transmitted between the bodies, e.g. force particles like photons or gravitons. The force particle model usually encounters difficulty in explaining attraction.

- No need for the interaction to be constrained by light speed, which would be the case for force particles.

- The interaction, if we may call it so, is instantaneous because no matter how far apart the interacting objects, when the distance between them perishes or is created, instantaneously the distance between them is reduced or increased.

All the best,

Akinbo

*I read some of your work in the Galilean relativity journal. I look forward to criticism of my model of Action at a distance with the full involvement of Mr Distance, probably after the competition is over.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 22:29 GMT
Neal,

If you have not done so, please take a look at my essay. I would be interested in your comments as you have a very practical perspective on Physics. There is still a week or so left to vote if you so desire.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 20:56 GMT
Dear Neal,

It is quite strange that only a few participants looked at your ideas. I red your essay and related papers by you an your father and I found them of interest. I had no time to enter into the details of your non-locality approach but it is useful in the panoply of theories. As the real world (if any) has multiple enties IAAAD may be one. You should have a look at S. Bobroskyiy essay and his reply to my comment about Vlasov's equation. The type of non-locality he is looking at may well have applications in the problem of dark matter.

Thanks for an interesting essay.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Bowery wrote on Oct. 25, 2015 @ 14:38 GMT
Our experiments, not designed to investigate this matter, incidentally show that the only fit to the data is if our model assumes instantaneous scalar potential and c vector potential. We are still investigating. In any event, it isn't clear to me how instantaneous vector potential can be made consistent with the vector potential description of electromagnetic waves since the spatial structures of electromagnetic waves arises from the spatial structures (gradient and curl) of the vector potential.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Neal Graneau replied on Oct. 29, 2015 @ 23:04 GMT
I am curious to know what experiments you are performing

Bookmark and Share


James Bowery replied on Dec. 1, 2015 @ 06:02 GMT
The experiments are based on:

"Detection of the Time-dependent Electromagnetic Potential at 1.3 GHz"

Natalia K. Nikolova and Robert K. Zimmerman

CEM-R-46

November 2007

Computational Electromagnetics Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Bowery wrote on Dec. 1, 2015 @ 06:05 GMT
"In the Grip of the Distant Universe: The Science of Inertia" describes computer simulation of propagation of electromagnetic radiation at c with IAAAD. Under what conditions, if any, is the source code for this available?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.