A couple of questions on that theory:

• Where do the electrons get enough energy to release a photon?  Imagine a copper wire sitting in a bath of liquid nitrogen, connected to a supply of <1 volt.  There's very little energy to excite the electrons, so that they can then release photons.
• How do the electrons know which way to emit the photons?  If it's random, then there will be no overall current.

Given that the Poynting vector points the direction of power flow for everything from 50Hz mains leads through microwave horn antennea and upwards to  X-rays, I'm not sure how you think it is not useful for AC?

Can you explain what you mean by 'cosine reductions' please ?

The none integer 'g' values (take care there are several slighlty different ones to consider for different particles) (and note the small correction from integer depends on the particle mass) is just the quantum electrodynamics at work - in effect the same thing that allows you to see the forces between 2 charged particles at rest as electrostatics, or by choosing a different measurement frame, where they appear to be moving (2 parallel currents then, rather than 2 static charges) there is a magnetic force effect due to the current.

It sorts itself out as of course in the moving reference frame, the flow of time and therefore the acceleration (how we see the force) are different.

There is indeed some uncertainty if there may be extra things going on not yet explained by standard models physics, but if there are then that will have an effect at parts in 10^10 or less, a precision not usually needed to explain motors turning - you do not even need relativity for that, so long as you are happy to separate charge position dependant electric fields E (volts/meter) and charge movement dependant magnetic fields H (amps/meter ) which of course is where we came in, ;-)

Mike.

Mike,

"Given that the Poynting vector points the direction of power flow for everything from 50Hz mains leads through microwave horn antennea and upwards to  X-rays, I'm not sure how you think it is not useful for AC?"

Exactly, Poynting points us to the voltage attraction direction which is in the z vector direction but to produce power we need to have a flux/current inertia area in the x,y direction and if this is not at right angles a Cosine reduction in real power will occur and we will have quantum VAR's.

Physicists have discovered that flux spin frequency moves at 2 times the speed of current amps which has relativity built in so as to move the whole massless electromagnetic unit sideways fractionally in time.. 

See sketch   

Hi Clive. Forgive me as I am no expert but the specific notion of flux spin frequency moving at twice the speed of current amps is not a standard concept in electromagnetism as I understand it, and I couldn’t find any direct references to support this claim ? 

You won't find it in any commonly accepted standard text. Such an assumption is neither necessary nor desirable as a part of the standard model of electromagnetic theory.

Mike.

(I am, originally by training at least, a physicist, although an experimental one, rather than a theoretician , so in the eyes of some an engineer/2)

The problem physicists have is electromagnetic power/energy is massless so cannot be weighed or measured apart from equivalents in retrospect which are not 3D. Time in frequency is measured alright But they should be able to find the shape of a volume of EM energy I am hoping??

Can The shape of a volume of (EM) energy not already be determined using various existing methods ?

CliveS said:

The problem physicists have is electromagnetic power/energy is massless

If e = mc², them m = e/c².

We electrical engineers know that power/energy must be balanced or a Cosine reduction in power and appearance of quantum Var's is witnessed. 

If a physics formula of electromagnetic light energy does not have a Cosine or more correctly a Sine symbol then it cannot correctly describe a 3D volume unit of density.  

Could you elaborate on what is meant by ‘quantum Vars’ this isn’t a standard term as far as I am aware. Is this some crossover into quantum mechanics ? 

Quantum electro dynamics I think is just physicists way of explain  imaginary VARs in 2 directions only. 

Quantum electro dynamics I think is just physicists way of explain  imaginary VARs in 2 directions only.