Extended EM theories


There are many researchers describing extended theories of electromagnetism, in which current Maxwell equation´s are just a subset of the whole electromagnetic waves, and thus a much greater range of features and characteristics are available for the future progress of humankind. Below there are a few bunch of theories which could allow the existance of new electromagnetic devices.

Many well-known scientists manifest that induction is a result of transformer induction (change in time in the magnetic field, B) and the motional induction (as consecuence of motion in space between the field and the wire) proposing that both are two completely different phenomena:

  • William J. Hooper , in his book “New Horizons In Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational Field Theory” describes that his experiments showed that there are different electric fields with very different properties. In his book, Hooper defines three electric fields with distinct characteristics: the electrostatic, which is very familiar, the motionally induced electric field, which is the product of relative motion between a conductor and a magnetic field, and the transformer electric field, which is produced by a changing magnetic field intensity. A table on page 15 of his book shows the major differences in the properties of these three fields. He tested that the motional induction can not be shielded by metals while the other fields can be neutralized.

Note: Also the Weber Electrodynamics theory propose a force adding the effect of three terms: Weber proposed an elementary force between electric charges consisting of three terms dependant on the distance, the velocity, and the acceleration of one charge relative to the other. The first term is nothing more than Coulomb’s law (electrostatic electricity), the second is related to the motional induction (generators), while the third accounts for the phenomenon of induction as result of a changing current (transformers). Weber’s and Ampere’s Electrodynamics postulates the existance of longitudinal forces between charged particles, while current Maxwell electrodynamic not. Why current theory doesn´t include longitudinal forces if they have been proved by many experiments?

  • Joseph Henry, on his essay “No. IV – On Electro-Dynamic Induction (Continued.)” in the section II “On apparently two kinds of Electro-dynamic Induction” included in the book “Contributions to  Electricity and Magnetism” describes his findindings about a second kind of induction, generated by motion, which can not be shielded by interposing metallic plates in contrast to the case of induction done by a changing electric current.
  • Richard Feynman, in his essay “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume II, Chapter 17: “The Laws of Induction”. Please watch carefully this revealing video with a recording of Feynman´s voice about two Physical Induction Laws to describe two different phenomena:

Video script:

“But the other case represents a new Law: when we move the magnetic field or change the magnetic field. Together the two laws, the two effects, form one beautiful rule. That is: No matter how the flux changes, either you move the coil or because you change the field, you get an “emf”. And that is a very beautiful general principle. This is the only place in Physics that I know where a beautiful general principle, which is accurate, requires for its real understanding to be analyzed as two different things in cooperation, and two different phenomena, and two different cases. Usually we represent a beautiful generalization as being the deepest principle. The beautiful generalization here is that no matter you move the coil or the magnetic field, the “emf” in a wire is always the rate of change of the flux. Nevertheless we cannot let it go at that and say: “That´s the Law”.

We have to analyze this as being two different things on two different circumstances. One: In general the force is the electric field [“E”], plus “v” [velocity] cross the magnetic field, “B” [ F = E + v × B ]. When we move the wire is the velocity of the wire that comes in here, in the field, and this part of the force is generating the “emf”, for that part of the “emf” which is produced by that wire in motion. What happens when the field is changing is… nothing to be with the field “B”. It is due to the existence on an electric field “E” which has nothing to do which whether the wire were there or not. If you have one region of space in which the magnetic field is changing, there is an electric field generated even though there may be no wire. “

Quote from “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume 2, Chapter 17 “The Laws of Induction”, Section 17-1:

” So the “flux rule”—that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit—applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both). The two possibilities—“circuit moves” or “field changes”—are not distinguished in the statement of the rule. Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases — v × B  for “circuit moves” and ∇  ×E = − ∂B / ∂t  for “field changes.” 

We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena. Usually such a beautiful generalization is found to stem from a single deep underlying principle. Nevertheless, in this case there does not appear to be any such profound implication. We have to understand the “rule” as the combined effects of two quite separate phenomena

We must look at the “flux rule” in the following way. In general, the force per unit charge is F / q = E + v × B . In moving wires there is the force from the second term. Also, there is an E-field if there is somewhere a changing magnetic field. They are independent effects, but the emf around the loop of wire is always equal to the rate of change of magnetic flux through it.”   


The flux linking law, ε = – dΦ/dt , and the flux cutting law, ε = B·v·L , often erroneously are considered as merely different ways of expressing the same phenomena. This article attempts to dispel the confusion surrounding the subject of electromagnetic induction.

  • Konstantine Meyl, in one scientific essay “Faraday or Maxwell?” includes the next image about the differences between the induction in generators and the induction in transformers. This author also proposes the existance of longitudinal waves (scalar waves) as complement to the electromagnetic transversal waves described by current theory. Tesla was the first to support the existance of longitudinal waves (the ones that he used in his wireless power transmision system)
  • Gennady Nikolaev and Stefan Marinov who proposed an extra magnetic field after finding experimental validation of the existance of longitudinal waves (scalar magnetic field) as well as the currently accepted vector magnetic field (transversal waves). Marinov found in Nikolaev´s theory the answer to many inconsistencies of the current theory.

“…in the space where the total vectorial magnetic field of two magnets is equal to zero, the total value of scalar magnetic field of two magnets is maximal. “

  • Hertz, in his Hertz Electrodynamics Theory, postulates that the total induction must take into acount two terms into the equation: the transformer induction plus the motional induction. Hertzian electrodynamics solves the existing asymmetries in Maxwell´s equations. Those asymmetries where tried to be solved (patched) by the Special Theory of Relativity. But under the Hertz electrodynamics the electromagnetic equations are invariant under Gallilean Transformation and the theory of relativity is not needed anymore to patch the problems in current Maxwell equations . See these links: Hertzian Electrodynamics , and , Lorentz´s Force