Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > > If an electric field exists outside and parallel to the current > carrying> wire, and the wire is a loop it implies the electric > field lines would > > form a closed loop. However, this is not suppose to possible. > > Certainly it is. It's only possible, however, if there's a changing > magnetic field in the loop. Curl(E) = -dB/dt.
Ok but it concerns a constant current so the magnetic field is constant too. > But in any case, exactly *how* would you arrange to have a current > carrying resistive wire carry a current in a closed loop? Where's the > EMF coming from? Answer that and you'll see how the field outside the > wire plays out. I mean the emf together with the wire form a loop, i.e. a closed circuit. I can see how the construction of the electromotive force (such as a battery) might prevent an electric field inside the wire from forming a loop, if the emf does not habour an electric field. However if there is an electric field outside the wire then shouldn't the field go around the emf to make a closed loop? > In other words, you have, essentially, hypothesized a closed loop of > wire with an E field pointing along the loop all the way around, and > then asked how there can be an E field in the *air* going all the way > around the loop. Well, how can there be such a field inside the > wire to > start with? In Weber's electrodynamics the electric field is a mathematical fiction, a mere calculating device, so this "paradox" is not an issue. Of course, the emf is real because it is what does the work to maintain a charge imbalance in a closed circuit. > Last I heard the Lorentz force, F = q(E + vxB), fully explained the > behavior of charged particles in E and B fields. > > Do you know any evidence that this is not the case? The ball bearing motor?!? ok,ok, three of the four published papers listed below support a prediction based on Weber's force law. Admittedly these three were all done by the same person. i) V. F. Mikhailov. The action of an electrostatic potential on the electron mass. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 24:161–169, 1999. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-241/aflb241p161.pdf ii) V. F. Mikhailov. Influence of an electrostatic potential on the inertial electron mass. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 26:33–38, 2001. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-264/aflb264p633.pdf iii) V. F. Mikhailov. Influence of a field-less electrostatic potential on the inertial electron mass. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 28:231– 236, 2003. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-282/aflb282p231.pdf The next one repeats the experiment in (i) but found no evidence supporting Weber's theory.They conclude,"A possible cause of Mikhailov’s positive result may be due to his choice of coupling the signals from the neon-glow-lamp oscillator to an external counter through a capacitor rather than through an electrically isolated optical fibre, as done in the present work. Any small leakage current through the capacitor will impact the frequency of the oscillator and this leakage will change as a function of the bias voltage." (iv) J. E. Junginger and Z. D. Popovic. An experimental investigation of the influence of an electrostatic potential on electron mass as predicted by Weber’s force law. Canadian Journal of Physics, 82:731–735, 2004. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&afpf=p04-046.pdf&journal=cjp&volume=82 Harry
