…Maxwellian electromagnetism and how the modern presentation of it neglects the primacy of fields (as opposed to charges and particles), as the primary mechanism for propagation of energy and signals.
That seems a rather odd thesis: Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics, for instance, puts fields front and center.
Now, if he’s talking about quantum physics, then indeed they often represent classical “fields” as “virtual particles” flying back and forth. But one should have some sympathy there: a single particle in quantum physics is represented by a whole wavefunction of probabilities, and representing fields (when one cannot do that by reverting to the classical versions of fields) is harder still. A particle, which classically is represented by six variables (three for position, three for velocity) becomes in quantum physics an infinity of variables. And a field is classically already an infinity of variables, so “please please can we reduce those to particles so that they’re at least minimally tractable in quantum terms” should be something one can sympathize with.
If I’m interpreting that right, E, A, and Φ are as usual (electric field and scalar and vector potential), while v is velocity and E_v is the electric field on a particle moving at velocity v. (Or, strictly speaking, the result of the combination of the electric and magnetic fields, ∇ × A being the magnetic field and thus the term containing it representing its contribution.)
In any case, that “crackpot” term is not a small term to add to the equation; it’s not like, say, Einstein’s corrections to Newtonian physics, which are negligible at everyday speeds. It’s large and would manifest itself strongly in all sorts of experiments and real-world applications.
And then on top of that, to get theory to “fit your measurements” you needed to also “tweak” Φ somehow, Φ basically being the voltage (in static situations it’s precisely the voltage), though your description of the tweak is vague enough that I cannot pin it down.
And all this mucking with the laws of physics seemed easier than just debugging your damn experiment and figuring out where you screwed it up.
That Woodside paper seems like a nice paper, but it’s purely mathematical: at least at first skim I see no suggestion in it that any change needs to be made in physical laws. That’d be Hively’s contribution, and he seems to be overvaluing uniqueness in theory. There’s no reason a theoretical object (like the vector potential) has to be unique; all that matters is that whatever choice you make, that choice doesn’t affect the end results of calculations. Having multiple theories for the same thing, even theories of very different forms, is normal in physics and math, and even helpful since you can choose the theory that’s easiest for any given application.
Another, perhaps even more startling correspondence with Hively and “Hidden Truth”:
I noticed the reference to Oakridge National Laboratories as in the vicinity of the protagonists.
Hively did his original work on extended electrodynamics at ORNL, from which he then retired to start his company.
Another correspondence between Hively and “Hidden Truth”:
Hively’s patent was granted April 2016.
Hidden Truth was published May 2016.
The saying, often quoted in “Hidden Truth”, comes to mind:
First time is happenstance.
Second time is coincidence.
Third time is enemy action.
As you’re probably discovering, Dr Schantz is a learned connoisseur of conspiracy theories and offbeat footnotes in the history of science and technology. You probably won’t be surprised to discover, for example, that Ettore Majorana plays a part in the sequels. Then there’s that nuclear bomb that was lost in 1958 near Jekyll Island, home of other skulduggery earlier in the century.
True as far as that goes.
I think Woodside was motivated by a burgeoning body of work by various investigators, going back many decades in some cases, who were all coming up with variations on what Hively calls “extended electrodynamics”. These were mostly independent of each other, relatively incomplete and occasionally motivated by observations, however apocryphal and inadequate in terms of experimental rigor they might have been. Woodside found a uniqueness theorem that happened to provide Hively with shoulders to stand on in attempting to bring theory into testable hypotheses. Hively did some additional parameterization but of a very modest nature – like assuming photons have zero rest mass – to come up with his Lagrangian that defines his EED that then decomposes into the above equations.
PS: After further discourse with Hively, I suspect the number of “unknowns” in that Lagrangian numbers only 8, because it is in terms of sources and potentials: The vectors A and J and the scalars phi and rho (charge density).