Electromagnetism and gravity
In 2000, Dr David Walton told me on the phone that he thought e=mc2 could be derived from classical electromagnetism. (He probably cited Maxwell, which would be in Maxwell, "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" (re)pub. Clarendon 1891/1998 vol. 2, p444/p792 art. 792; "Energy and Stress of Radiation".)
I thought hard about it, and came to the conclusions written at
This purported to be close to achieving what Dave said was possible. A TEM pulse guided by two conductors collided with a short at the end, and reflected. I used F=Bil at the short to work out the forward force in the terminating short. It lasted for the time t taken for the pulse to reflect. This gave me an impulse Ft. F=d/dt (mv). I knew that v=c, 300,000. So I could work our m, the "mass" of the TEM Wave.
Against this, worked out the energy in the TEM pulse, which was watts x time. The watts was v x i. The time was the time the TEM pulse took to pass a point onj its journey.
I worried that the formula F=Bil applied when an (electric) current carrying conductor wad immersed in a magnetic field B. If the termination was the simplest case, a flat surface shutting off the end of a coaxial cable, then the field B was only on one side of the electric current in the terminating short, so the use of the formula was doubtful. That was supposedly the only imperfection uin the full derivation e=mc2 from classical electromagnetism.#
Now to get back to first principles. If something reflects, then is work done in causing it to reflect? Why was the work done an indication of the energy in the item which was reflected? Anmyway, no work was done, because the force in the terminating short did not move through distance, and energy is (force x distance).
Today, it appears to me that all that was done in http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/11120.htm was a sort of "dimensional analysis". Look around for items whose dimensions can be correctly put at two sides of the "=" sign from the point of view of getting the dimensions the same on both sides.
My thinking today (August 2007) is spurred by considering the inverse case, of a TEM pulse reflecting at an open circuit at the end of a coax cable. The energy is reflected, as before, but it is not clear where the force (which was in the short) is in this case.
Nobody has criticised the arguments at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/11120.htm
We can draw more than one conclusion from this debacle.
The first is that there is nobody there. (The world is free of people applying their minds to electromagnetic theory. This is proven by the total lack of response to numerous writings of mine, listed at Note 1 below.) When considering advances in electromagnetic theory, we are totally on our own.
The second is that within my narrow circle, nobody suggested flaws in http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/11120.htm
That means that either my associates are excessively polite, or I and they are together capable of overlooking flaws in a reasoned argument if the prize appears to be so great. This should encourage us to be suspicious of our own reasoning as well as that of others.
The third is to suggest that whoever "derives" e=mc2 may be merely doing a piece of dimensional analysis. The fact that permittivity and permeability are somehow mixede up with velocity is difficult for even us to handle, let alone the Great Outside. Of course, I myself kinow that they are merely derivations from Zo and c, that is, from 377 and 300,000. The latter are the real Primitives. However, their role is successful in making us unable to clearly what is happening when we manipulate various terms to arrive at e=mc2.
Once we set out to manufacture all that exists in the universe out of energy currents, or TEM Waves, the term "m" certainly comes to lack much integrity. eremains of course.
Ivor Catt 16 August 2007.