Tesla's electricity
Many people believe that the Maxwell equations explain all known electrical and magnetic phenomena and therefore do not see any reason to even consider Tesla's gas model (as explained here).
The Maxwell equations are considered to be almost Holy in modern science as they have enriched us with many valuable insights, yet as a scientist you should always question everything and there can be no place for holy rules. I do not want to say that these equations are crap, but in my humble opinion they do contain a very obvious error. And for that reason too, I believe we should not be so afraid to have a closer look at them and perhaps even correct them.
An error in Maxwell's equations????
Yes, and in fact a well known error. If we have two non-parallel current carrying conductors according to Maxwell they exert a force on each other that does not satisfy Newtons third law of motion as these forces are equal in size but not in opposite direction.
Again I mention this not to trash Maxwell's work, but just to show that this holiness is perhaps a little undue.
What does Tesla's view give us?
Well, I can mention a number of things here. I already mentioned in Part 1 of Tesla's free energy about the 1800 ampere we see flowing through our atmosphere without the Earth losing any charge. And in Part 2 of Tesla's free energy I showed how easy it is to explain a stepped leader, which has many scientists baffled.
I'd like to add to that this video that I saw this morning about sounds that are electrically created high in our atmosphere where the air is so thin that it is impossible to have sound waves as we know it. Yet, if there is Tesla's gaseous medium up there, then this medium is perfectly capable of creating and conducting sound waves. When these waves enter more dense regions of our atmosphere they become audible sound. This is a perfectly natural and exceedingly simple explanation for these observed phenomena, and thus should win the Occam's Razor test any time.
A very similar (from a technical perspective) phenomenon can be observed when a high voltage capacitor submerged in a thin oil is discharged over a magnetically quenched spark gap. The discharge creates a turmoil in this medium which is greatly enhanced by the magnetically quenching. Holding a (electrically insulated) conductor near the surface of the oil creates circular waves on this surface centred around the tip of the conductor. The conductor focusses the turmoil in the medium on one spot of the surface, the medium drags the air along which in turn pushes on the surface of the oil, creating these waves. Yet again a very elegant and simple explanation for something that would otherwise boggle the mind.
Modern views
Inside a metal conductor some electrons can freely move around and although these are electrically charged particles they move in a oppositely charged environment and therefore there is little mutual (repelling) interaction. Thus these free electrons move in much the same way as particles of an ideal gas. This gas has sometimes been called electron gas, see the wiki entry. So to think of electricity as a gas is in fact partly incorporated in our modern science. Also in plasma physics the term "electron temperature" is a very recognized and perfectly well defined term.
Although this seems to match with Tesla's theories it does not fully do so, for Tesla does not believe that electrons exist outside a vacuum, and the particles that make up Tesla's gas seem to be even smaller than an electron.
Tesla wrote that electricity seems to cling to matter which is very much like how we see electrons circling atoms.
Bohr's Model
In Bohr's model we see electrons circling an atom nucleus, does that mean that if we could zoom in to see an atom that is what we would see? NO!, it is a model! It describes how atoms behave as if they are build up in that manner. But anyone who has studied organic chemistry or quantum physics knows for sure that they are not.
In organic chemistry we speak of electron clouds that are not necessarily spherical at all and have a look at this image which shows the possible charge distributions in a hydrogen atom according to quantum physics:
Some of these distributions allow for orbiting electrons, but most of them do not. It looks much more like a gaseous cloud clinging to the atom, exactly as Tesla described.
So, long story short, I think there is sufficient reason to be more open minded to Tesla's views. They may turn out to be incorrect, but just as we learned many things from other incorrect theories, there is a great opportunity to learn new things here, and there is always a (remote?) chance that his view is in fact the correct view....
Please do not hesitate to share your thoughts!
Very interesting insight into Tesla's theoretical work.
I have several comments with respect to your post, if I may:
Thanks for contributing, it is very much appreciated. Let me briefly go through the points you make:
Your first point, as I see it, is exactly what I am saying. Perhaps, if there has to be a difference, it could be that the way you state it shows that you are happy with the solution QM provides, whereas for me the issue is not solved with absolute certainty.
Your second point, is also partly what I am saying; it is a long known incompatibility. For me however it is absolutely an error because if two particles exert a force on each other the combined force on the combined particles has to be zero for if they were not inanimate things could suddenly start moving which is something entirely unknown to all science. Also I studied relativity at university level and I do not see how this solves this issue. Perhaps you could refer me to a paper/theory on this?
Then your third point... When you read popular science publications everything is presented as if we know it all, while if you go to a university and talk to any professor on that subject you will find that there are as many theories as there are unanswered questions. Only in math you will find certainties, in physics and other sciences there are none.
Take data. All microscopic physics data. But all. They all agree with QM. Which means that whatever is the true theory of nature, it has to reproduce the predictions of QM very well concerning the 100 years of data we have.
An incompatibility is not an error. Those are different things. The problem with maxwell equations and Newton mechanics is that the time is absolute. Maxwell equations are not invariant under Galilean transformations, but they are under Lorentz transformations. This is what I meant. Take any textbook It is in there.
And for the final point, an theory is a very nice thing, but a theory in agreement with data is better. Including all possible source of uncertainties on the predictions.
Thanks for your prompt reply. I agree with your 1st and 3rd point, but I am afraid I did not get the problem that I see with Maxwell's equations across. It is not the issue you mentioned, which is a known and solved issue, and therefore not or no longer an error.
Look at this picture from my colleague Koen van Vlaenderen:
J(x) and J(x') denotes the current in a conductor,
fr() denotes the forces as given by Maxwell and f() as given by Newton.
All our experiences and logic dictates that Newton's forces represent the actual situation implying that Maxwell gives the wrong answers in this particular case.
Sorry for my late answer. I was without any computer for a few days. If you refer to the theory of Vlaenderen, it is questionable as charge is not conserved in his theory. To me, this is sufficient to prevent me from further thinking about it as we have here an apparent failure of his theory.
Koen did put a version online that still contained an error, but I believe that even in that version conservation of charge is not violated. Anyway his most recent and peer reviewed version can be found here. Many people, much more clever than I, have now reviewed it and I am pretty sure it is correct.
Besides that, it is completely obvious that the forces in the above image as given by Maxwell can not possibly be correct, even if Koen's theory would be completely flawed. It is a recognized and known error and there are some more theories, besides Koen's that intend to correct it.
This journal is not considered as a serious journal. It is mostly spamming scientists to publish with them. Therefore, the peer-review process is questionable.
Concerning your picture, I need the full context. Where is the conductor? etc...
Ok, you have made your point.
mycket intresant thanks
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Feb 01. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $8.13 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Feb 01 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I have personally heard crackling sounds as large, bright meteors passed overhead. An interesting phenomenon, to be sure. 😄😇😄
