# Is EM theory appropriate on Physics.SE?

I'm having trouble posting anything relating to EM theory derived from Maxwell on this site. I'm continually having posts deleted 7 day ban's refusing to accept references particularly my own work, references not modern enough, "no history on this site", "only mainstream physics here".

Rarely does anyone actually engage to find errors of fact in my posts. Is this in line with SE's charter, to be a good community forum, adding to the knowledge of the community, industry and education.

I'm well respected in my own local community and my previous employment. I reached the highest level attainable in my field of expertise. I'm also a consultant to the department of defence in another country with approval of similar department in my parent country. It seems to only be a problem with Physics on SE. Engineering history, etc. seem OK.

• Well, the Physics.SE guidelines do explicitly state that only questions about mainstream physics are allowed. So if the posted question talks about your own theory, then this might conflict. May 19 at 7:48
• @NDewolf could you please point me to physics.SE guidelines i'm a bit of a newbie here May 19 at 7:58
• Historical matters aren't exactly off-topic here, but they shouldn't be the primary focus of a question. There's a whole site dedicated to the history of science & mathematics, with a community of people who generally know more about historical issues than we do here. There's no history of engineering site, so the main engineering sites handle their own historical questions. Similarly, we occasionally get questions about software used in physics modeling, but generally those questions are more suited to a software-oriented site like SO or mattermodeling.stackexchange.com May 19 at 8:03
• May 19 at 8:07

To address the question in the title:

Is EM theory appropriate on a physics forum

Yes, it is. The tag on this site has 12 thousand open questions. This is the second biggest tag on the site (with QM having 20k open questions). Any claims of "discrimination" or "bigotry" against electromagnetism are entirely divorced from the reality of the site.

That said, just because a question or an answer involves electromagnetism does not automatically imply that it is on-topic $$-$$ it also needs to be in line with the other site guidelines. This much should be obvious: like all venues, there are some ground rules, and posts that don't satisfy them get closed.

In particular, when you say

Is this in line with SE's charter, to be a good community forum

you point at what is likely the biggest disconnect here. The basic charter of Stack Exchange sites is not to be a good community forum, or indeed a forum at all. This is a questions-and-answers site. The goal is to be a place where people can ask questions about physics and get high-quality answers, and where future visitors can learn from those answers.

In particular, this implies that there are several other things that this site could be that have been rejected in favour of the core goal of being a high-quality, high-signal-to-noise Q&A site. Among these:

• Questions about history are considered off-topic because there is already a dedicated site for them. Questions here should be about physics and not about its history. This keeps the site focused.

• Homework and exercise questions are considered off-topic, because they significantly reduce the signal-to-noise ratio in the quality of questions, which reduces the engagement from expert users.

• This site is not an appropriate location for peer review, because we cannot do it in an effective way and it is a very poor fit for the format.

• More generally, discussion threads are off-topic, because they are a poor fit for the format that comes from being a Stack Exchange Q&A platform. If your goal is "I would like to know X", then the platform is well suited to finding, sorting and rewarding answers to that question. If your goal is "I would like to participate in a discussion about X", that doesn't really work with the SE software: it produces endless threads which are hard to navigate, and with endless activity that crowds out more pointed questions. We're not saying that discussion is bad, just that it doesn't fit here.

• Non-mainstream physics is off-topic here. The site scope is physics, as it is understood in the mainstream literature. This is because if non-mainstream physics is allowed (say, if questions and answers taking flat-Earth theory as correct were permitted) this site would lose all of the experts in its community in short order. This is a hard line to draw in an objective way, so sometimes some toes end up getting stubbed in the implementation, but it is an essential component to keeping this site viable, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

• In addition to that, questions here are expected to be readable, useful, and clear, to suitably back up any assertions they present, and to contain actual questions. Low-quality posts that fail to meet those standards sufficiently get closed, in service of keeping a high signal-to-noise ratio for potential answerers.

(Obviously this is a non-exclusive list.)

Those are the ground rules that this site has used to become a quality resource and a place where one can get answers from extremely valuable experts in a huge range of topics, starting with electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. If those ground rules suit you, then we'll be glad to have you! If you're looking for something different (say, a venue that can accommodate discussions or peer review), then we hope you find a venue that does suit your needs.

• This is exactly the answer that I started to write, but you did much a better job than I was planning to. Glad I waited.
– rob Mod
May 20 at 2:29

Physics.SE is not designed as a "discuss my research" or even worse "discuss my unpublished research" website. It is designed as a Q&A from already established (i.e. known and typically published in textbooks or research articles already published in peer review journals) knowledge, except solving high-school or college homework which we typically reject, because there are other places on the internet where homework help is offered.

One more thing, Physics.SE is technically not a forum, we allow comments to questions and answers, but not long comments threads, as on a regular internet forum.

• You have not answered my question. "Is EM theory appropriate on a physics forum?" To put it another way, is EM theory mainstream. You obviously don't appreciate you're wonderful cellphone, I suppose you think it is a Quantum device. Is radio astronomy a thing of the past. Niels Bohr and Von Neumen said the laser could not possibly work because of the uncertainty principle. The Quantum computer has not advanced much in 40 years. There are at least a dozen interpretations of QM. light sails are in use but QM's are not sure they can work or how the could possibly work. May 19 at 12:30
• Is the company associated with stackexchange aware of the bigoted and discriminatory behavior of the physics group and there dislike of EM, Maxwell and everything that the modern Telecommunication industry produces. How will the US compete with china with such an attitude? The company prides itself on its value to the community in exchange for the privilege of using the public network. Are they aware of a nest of bigots spoiling the brand? May 19 at 12:43
• Perhaps the physics title should changed to Quantum physics and a separate forum for general practitioners of physics. May 19 at 12:49
• I think EM is one of the most occurring topics on Physics.SE. So no, it is not discriminated. However, from what you have written above, it appears as if you are confusing established EM and a non-mainstream derivative. May 19 at 13:02
• Hi @barry -- I have an observation that might help you get more traction here. I can sense in your post and your comments above that you're frustrated and you'd like help understanding how to formulate your posts so they fit in well with the community, but that message gets lost in the way you package it... It's hard to tell sometimes if you really want feedback, or if you're looking to start (or continue) an argument. Folks here are very receptive to giving and taking constructive feedback, but if it seems aggressive and looks like an invitation to argue instead, it usually doesn't go far. May 19 at 13:31
• I guess my general advice would be to consider the intent and tone of posts and try to assess what it is you would like to accomplish with a post or comment, and then try to make the tone match the intention. If the intention really is to engage in discussion/debate/arguments, then Physics.SE is not the place for that to happen and there are other sites out there. But if the intention is to share knowledge and give/take constructive feedback, then try to match the tone and words to that intention and you'll be contributing all over the site in no time! May 19 at 13:34
• @tpg2114 I do appreciate what you say but but I am totally alone here I am banned from two other forums and barely alive on this one and going OK on another forum. The meek will only inherit the earth if it's OK with everyone else. I really think that no amount of change in tone will stop the bullying I receive. I claim that I am applying modern EM theory to physics problems i have 10 published peer reviewed papers in international physics that can't post, completely legitimate questions closed no real justification, comments removed one week bans 4 day bans. May 19 at 14:02
• I have only been here just over a month. my question about EM being appropriate on this forum remains unanswered. what tone should adopt for that question. what tone should I use to ask "what is the mean free path of a CMBR photon" that question is closed. my bio claims I'm a reasonably well accepted fellow n the real world but not here among theoreticians and mathematicians. The forum perhaps is misnamed, perhaps it should be named "theoretical physics". the fact is consensus is against me and power corrupts, so i'm being bullied to leave the forum. May 19 at 14:17
• @NDewolf "it appears as if you are confusing established EM and a non-mainstream derivative. – NDewolf". Show me my ref to non -mainstream EM. Are you qualified to comment on EM. May 19 at 16:42
• @barry Just wanted to chime in again on helping to diffuse things a bit... There's no verification of PhD's when people sign up or contribute. Everybody is qualified to post something, and the community determines the accuracy and usefulness of a post. So there's no need to demand qualifications from somebody and doing so comes across as rude. The second thing I want to point out -- you seem to have cut out some very important context in your quote in the comment above. That sentence from NDewolf started with "However, from what you've written above, it appears..." May 19 at 23:02
• They are simply saying that whatever posts got closed for being non-mainstream seem to suggest that EM and non-mainstream ideas are getting confused. They aren't making that assessment by looking at your posts. Just by reading what you described and the actions the community took. One of the things we try to emphasize in our community is "assume good faith" and that people are being helpful and constructive. If something could be taken as a constructive comment or an insult, then assume the constructive interpretation is the right one. As I mentioned before, consider how tone matches intent. May 19 at 23:04
• There are some comments in this thread which are right at the hairy edge of what’s allowed by our code of conduct. I have deleted the rudeness less aggressively than usual because the subject of this discussion is censorship and access to the site. However, please don’t misinterpret that transparency as lenience, nor as license to let the discussion here go off the rails. Be kind to each other, folks, and assume that everyone here is participating in good faith.
– rob Mod
May 20 at 11:10

Yes E&M is (generally) on topic but to be blunt: a lot of your answers actually aren’t really on topic or actual answers: many are extended comments designed to cause a polemic, start a discussion, and push your own work.

Many of your answers have been deleted and not everyone can see posts, but a representative of this track is this post on entanglement and Bell’s inequality

The question is quite clear:

Is there a nontechnical explanation of how the truthfulness of Bell's inequality confirms/proves Bohr's interpretation on “entanglement”?

but instead you launch into a tirade about Bell’s assumptions and go on to state that “In other words entanglement is unnecessary there is no point in doing more excruciating EPR experiments, local realism and causality are preserved, there the EPR paradox is resolved because photon's don't exist. “ which doesn’t answer the question.

Another example is this post on measuring the electric field: again the question is simple:

Does anyone know a classical experiment measuring the magnetic field $$\vec B$$ and not the flux $$\int \vec B\cdot d\vec S$$?

After pointing out that to your knowledge $$\vec A$$ has never been directly measured, you digress into a critique of the Tonomura experiment (with previous reference to one of your papers). Again, while this critique may be worth another question, that part of your answer isn’t relevant to the question.

These stand out because you went out of your way to answer old questions with posts that weren’t really answers.

• @ZeroTheHero...It's standard mainstream knowledge that A is controversial and has never been measured. for many years it was thought to be an abstract mathematical tool for simplifying difficult EM problems. As a retired RF engineer I used it routinely in calculations. but could not make up my mind on its "reality" i have tried to measure it myself but results are ambiguous. If you can give me a reference to such a measurement I'll be much obliged. I have a "peer reviewed" paper'on Tonamura's experiment you may wish to critique the tactfulness of the paper. it's still scoring reads. Jun 23 at 7:45
• @ZeroTheHero...Feynman considered A to be more real than B. the late Prof Shadowitz put a lot of thought into it and suspected it may be real. Somewhat surprisingly the humble iron cored transformer winding's operate in an area where B is absent but there is lots of A. If you hold a strong Neodimium magnet, near a very low flux leakage, modern mains operated transformer, you will feel strong 60 Hertz vibration in your hand. Is this an analogue of the AB effect? Can you at least explain it? Jun 23 at 8:02
• ........" a tirade about Bell’s assumptions " Bell and CHSH made many assumptions as a prelude to their experiments. this is quite normal. I simply tried to alert people to the fact that one of the crucial assumptions, is, that the photons must retain their integrity. I resent you strong defamatory / rude /unprofessional statement "a tirade". Jun 23 at 8:59
• @ZeroTheHero...The paper you denigrate. refers to the authors privately communicating with the experts in superconductivity in the day. We received conformation from every one, except Prof. Tonamura, as you may expect? The main thrust of our paper does not question Tonamuras attempt answer previous criticisms of the AB effect, but we questioned the effective of the super conducting shield in changing the ratio of A and the B due to flux leakage. We claim that the the A will be attenuated to the same extent as B. Also the superconducting skin depth was insufficient anyway. Jun 23 at 9:10
• @barry Sir: I do and did not denigrate any paper. If I may, you seem to persist in missing this elementary point: many of your answers are simply not relevant to the questions. In a question on measuring $\vec B$ and not it’s flux, you criticize an experiment. Your criticism of that experiment may well be valid, and would be appropriate if the question was about this experiment, but do not supply an answer to the original question. Jun 23 at 12:02
• @barry To give a distorted analogy: to a question about the rules of cricket you often answer about the condition of the pitch. You may well be right about your observations, but they are simply not applicable to the original question. Jun 23 at 12:04
• @barry I’m sorry to say that most of your comments to this answer are also missing the mark. You argue Feynman thought this or that. You may or may not be right, but that’s irrelevant to the question of measuring $\vec B$ rather than it flux. Jun 23 at 12:07
• @barry I do not challenge (or even wish to challenge) your expertise in any way: just the fact that your posts do not answer the questions. If you wish to post a question on Tonamura's experiment, by all means do so. Jun 23 at 14:16
• @barry To your original Rarely does anyone actually engage to find errors of fact in my posts: nobody is suggesting there are errors in your posts, just that they are often not relevant to the original questions. Jun 23 at 14:17