A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The integral form and the differential form



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 09, 03:18 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Andrew Usher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default The integral form and the differential form

It is well known that Maxwell's equations of electro-magnetism have an
integral and a differential form, which are usually considered
equivalent. I have realised that this can not be so.

Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite. Therefore the differential equations can only
be an approximation, while the integral forms are exact. This can also
be checked by noting that the integral form can be proven from the
differential (divergence theorem etc.), while going the other way
requires an assumption of continuity.

Matter, like charge, is discrete and not continuous, so the same must
be true of Einstein's equation of general relativity. If it can not be
written in an integral form, it is wrong !! Can it be? (I imagine one
would have to use the flat-spacetime formulation, which would itself
be interesting in suggesting that spacetime really is necessarily
globally flat.)

Andrew Usher
  #2  
Old July 17th 09, 10:01 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Androcles[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,135
Default The integral form and the differential form


"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
It is well known that Maxwell's equations of electro-magnetism have an
integral and a differential form, which are usually considered
equivalent. I have realised that this can not be so.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...em_of_calculus
Read, absorb, and inwardly digest.


  #3  
Old July 17th 09, 12:02 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default The integral form and the differential form

On Jul 16, 6:18*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
It is well known that Maxwell's equations of electro-magnetism have an
integral and a differential form, which are usually considered
equivalent. I have realised that this can not be so.


You are wrong. The integral and differential forms contain the exact
same information - there has been a lot written about this, you should
consider doing some light reading.


Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite.


Your entire argument is based on a silly and incorrect claim. This is
pointless.

[snip conclusion based on a false premise]
  #4  
Old July 17th 09, 06:51 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Andrew Usher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default The integral form and the differential form

On Jul 17, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

You are wrong. The integral and differential forms contain the exact
same information - there has been a lot written about this, you should
consider doing some light reading.


I am aware of the derivations and they are as I stated. In particular,
getting the differential from the integral form requires assumptions
of
continuity (in the form that 'charge density' and 'current density'
are
integrable functions).

Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite.


Your entire argument is based on a silly and incorrect claim. This is
pointless.


No, this is correct. What is the 'charge density' at a point? Clearly,
0
unless the point coincides with a charged elementary particle, where
it is infinite. It's as a delta function, which is not differentiable.

Andrew Usher
  #5  
Old July 17th 09, 07:07 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default The integral form and the differential form

In sci.astro Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:


You are wrong. The integral and differential forms contain the exact
same information - there has been a lot written about this, you should
consider doing some light reading.


I am aware of the derivations and they are as I stated. In particular,
getting the differential from the integral form requires assumptions
of continuity (in the form that 'charge density' and 'current density'
are integrable functions).


It's enough for them to be distributions (in the mathematical sense
-- e.g., Dirac delta functions or their derivatives).

Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are
all either zero or infinite.


Classically, these derivatives are well-defined as distributions. See,
for example, chapter 14 of Jackson, _Classical Electrodynamics_.
(The chapter may vary depending on which edition you have; look
for the section "Lienard-Wiechert Potentials and Fields for a Point
Charge.")

[...] What is the 'charge density' at a point? Clearly, 0
unless the point coincides with a charged elementary particle, where
it is infinite. It's as a delta function, which is not differentiable.


A delta function is differentiable, as a distribution. Derivatives of
delta functions are used all the time.

(Of course, in quantum electrodynamics, the differential form of
Maxwell's equations holds in the Heisenberg picture as a set of
operator equations, for which the issues are different.)

Steve Carlip
  #6  
Old July 17th 09, 07:41 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default The integral form and the differential form

On Jul 16, 10:18*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
It is well known that Maxwell's equations of electro-magnetism have an
integral and a differential form, which are usually considered
equivalent. I have realised that this can not be so.

Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite. Therefore the differential equations can only
be an approximation, while the integral forms are exact. This can also
be checked by noting that the integral form can be proven from the
differential (divergence theorem etc.), while going the other way
requires an assumption of continuity.

Matter, like charge, is discrete and not continuous, so the same must
be true of Einstein's equation of general relativity. If it can not be
written in an integral form, it is wrong !! Can it be? (I imagine one
would have to use the flat-spacetime formulation, which would itself
be interesting in suggesting that spacetime really is necessarily
globally flat.)

Andrew Usher


A lot of people have commented that relativity is a classical physics
theory/mathematics and so cannot be completely right as it is not
quantum mechanical. Hence, the search for "unification."
  #7  
Old July 18th 09, 07:26 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default The integral form and the differential form

Andrew Usher wrote:

On Jul 17, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

You are wrong. The integral and differential forms contain the exact
same information - there has been a lot written about this, you should
consider doing some light reading.


I am aware of the derivations and they are as I stated. In particular,
getting the differential from the integral form requires assumptions
of
continuity (in the form that 'charge density' and 'current density'
are
integrable functions).


Being integrable is not the same as being continuous. Steve Carlip mentioned
the Dirac delta function. Consider other common discontinuous but integrable
functions like the step and sawtooth functions.

[...]

  #8  
Old July 19th 09, 03:25 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Puppet_Sock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default The integral form and the differential form

On Jul 16, 10:18*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
[snip]
Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite. Therefore the differential equations can only
be an approximation, while the integral forms are exact.

[snip]

You need to study up on what "quantized" means. It does
not mean that the things you are considering taking the
derivative of are not continuous. Go back and read your
intro quantum text again. Get a few more. The functions
are quantum wave functions. Figure out what that means.

Then go away and stop being so silly.
Socks
  #9  
Old July 23rd 09, 05:15 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Benj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default The integral form and the differential form

On Jul 16, 10:18*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:

Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite. Therefore the differential equations can only
be an approximation, while the integral forms are exact. This can also
be checked by noting that the integral form can be proven from the
differential (divergence theorem etc.), while going the other way
requires an assumption of continuity.


1. Maxwell's equations are based upon an incompressible fluid model.
Thus, they fail when functions are not continuous and differentiable.
This is easily shown for example in that switching circuits do not
follow Faraday's law of magnetic induction.

2. Both the differential and integral forms fail at quantized (non-
continuous) levels.

3. Any continuous fluid model will require enough discrete elements so
that they approximate a continuous fluid to some degree or it fails to
give even approximate valid answers.

4. Math is not more real than reality.

5. I hope you've noticed that everyone attempting to "answer" your
question is a moron.




  #10  
Old July 23rd 09, 07:56 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default The integral form and the differential form

Benj wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:18 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:

Charge, after all, is quantised, and the derivatives therefore are all
either zero or infinite. Therefore the differential equations can only
be an approximation, while the integral forms are exact. This can also
be checked by noting that the integral form can be proven from the
differential (divergence theorem etc.), while going the other way
requires an assumption of continuity.


1. Maxwell's equations are based upon an incompressible fluid model.


No, they are not.

Thus, they fail when functions are not continuous and differentiable.


This sentence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have never taken
- much less passed - a course in electrodynamics.

This is easily shown for example in that switching circuits do not
follow Faraday's law of magnetic induction.


Oh, do we have a retired engineer on our hands?


2. Both the differential and integral forms fail at quantized (non-
continuous) levels.


That's because classical E&M is ... get this ... classical. However, the
covariant Maxwell's equations work just fine for quantum field theory.


3. Any continuous fluid model will require enough discrete elements so
that they approximate a continuous fluid to some degree or it fails to
give even approximate valid answers.


Maxwell's equations aren't based on fluids. Moron.


4. Math is not more real than reality.


Since you understand neither, I suppose we should take your word for it.


5. I hope you've noticed that everyone attempting to "answer" your
question is a moron.


Have you ever set foot inside a classroom that taught the subject?

Have you ever read a book that taught the subject at a level commensurate
with your mouth? Griffiths? Jackson? Hmm?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reverting to form Derek Lyons Policy 8 February 7th 07 09:47 PM
Geometric Form brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 1 January 25th 06 04:20 AM
Posted Draft Paper: Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws of Nature in Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and General Coordinate Transformations? brian a m stuckless Policy 0 November 29th 05 10:49 AM
Posted Draft Paper: Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws of Nature in Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and General Coordinate Transformations? brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 November 29th 05 10:49 AM
When did stars form? Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 0 April 8th 04 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.