Physical experiments demonstrate that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples

Physical experiments demonstrate that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Physical experiments demonstrate that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples Beibiao Jin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6713667/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The validity of the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, the validity of the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the conductor, and the validity of the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge experiences a force in a magnetic field were all tested using physical experiments. It was discovered that all these four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have physical experiment counterexamples and none of them hold true. That is, the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon, that is, a conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, or a moving independent charge (/charge beam) cannot achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon. The electromagnetic phenomena, such as the so-called Ampère force, the so-called motional electromotive force, the so-called Oersted's magnetic field and the so-called Lorentz force, are all achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. For the so-called Lorentz force, the closed loop is consisting of the current beam of moving independent charges and displacement currents. Physical experiments Fundamental laws of electromagnetism Physical experiment counterexamples The whole of a closed loop The minimum physical unit required to achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon The logic of physical law verification Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Article Highlights It demonstrates that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples. It reveals that the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, any part of this minimum physical unit alone is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon, and that all electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. It provides a new basis for developing new theories and equations that more accurately describe the natural world. It offers a new approach for creating improved electromagnetic equipment and devices. 1 Introduction So far, the electrical machinery developed by humans based on the fundamental laws of electromagnetism can be divided into two types: electrical motors and electrical generators. These include various forms, such as DC motors, AC motors, synchronous motors, asynchronous motors, brushed motors, and brushless motors. But all of these electrical machineries share one common feature: the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings changes when they are in working state. This change in magnetic flux is the root cause of decreased efficiency and increased manufacturing and control costs in electrical motors and electrical generators. An in-depth study of the fundamental laws of electromagnetism revealed that based on the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, electrical motors and electrical generators can be designed and fabricated in such a way that there is no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings when they are in working state. This approach would greatly improve the working efficiency of electrical motors and electrical generators, and significantly reduce their manufacturing and control costs. Therefore, six years ago, a development project was initiated to create electrical motors and electrical generators that would not change the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings during operation. Consequently, these electrical motors and electrical generators were designed and fabricated strictly based on the fundamental laws of electromagnetism. Although these electrical motors and electrical generators fully comply with the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, such as the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field and the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, all of them completely failed in physical experiment tests, ultimately resulting in the complete failure of the project. After that, a year and a half of time were spent in optimization of these electrical motors and electrical generators, however they still did not work at all. It is entirely unbelievable that these electrical motors and electrical generators completely failed in the physical experiment tests, however, there must be something wrong with the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, as there is no other plausible explanation. Therefore, the validity of the Ampère force law [ 1 ] which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the validity of the Faraday's law [ 2 ] of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, the validity of the Oersted's law [ 2 ] of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the conductor, and the validity of the Lorentz force law [ 1 ] which states that a moving independent charge experiences a force in a magnetic field were all tested using physical experiments. It was then discovered that the so-called Ampère force law, the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force, the so-called Oersted's law of electromagnetism, and the so-called Lorentz force law all have counterexamples. That is, it was discovered that the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, all electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. Any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon. A conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, or a moving independent charge cannot achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon. In other words, it was discovered that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field, a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force, a current-carrying conductor itself does not generate a magnetic field and a moving independent charge itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field. These results indicate that the electrical motors and electrical generators designed, fabricated and tested in the project six years ago serve as physical experiment counterexamples to the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, such as the physical experiment counterexamples to the so-called Ampère force law and to the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force. This is why these electrical motors and electrical generators did not work at all, ultimately resulting in the complete failure of the project six years ago. It reveals a fundamentally different electromagnetic nature of the world, depending on whether the electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by a conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, and a moving independent charge, or by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. This is an extremely important scientific question that should have been addressed earlier; however, it still remains unclear to date. Here, the closed loop can be a conductor closed loop, a closed loop consisting of displacement currents, or a closed loop consisting of the current (beam) of moving independent charge, and it is referred to general closed loop. In addition, in fact, up to date, humans have never experimentally detected a force on a current-carrying conductor that is alone in a magnetic field, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity), caused by the motion of the current-carrying conductor, within the closed loop consisting of the conductor. Moreover, humans have never experimentally detected a motional electromotive force on a conductor that is alone in a magnetic field and cuts through magnetic field lines, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux, caused by the motion of the conductor, within the closed loop consisting of the conductor. Furthermore, humans have never experimentally detected a magnetic field around an independent current-carrying conductor, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux, caused by the change of current of the closed loop, within the closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor. Additionally, humans have never experimentally detected a force on a moving independent charge that is alone in a magnetic field, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux, caused by the motion of the moving independent charge, within the closed loop consisting of the moving independent charge. Although a moving independent charge appears to be an independent beam, it actually is an inalienable part of a closed electric field loop. In fact, there is no such thing as a fully independent charge beam in the world, any apparent charge beam is merely a segment of a closed electric field loop. Actually, none of these four fundamental laws of electromagnetism described above were concluded with true adherence to physical experiments or derived with rigorous logical reasoning. They are merely four illusions which are widely trusted and commonly used, such as in the Biot-Savart law and in Maxwell's equations [ 3 ]. It is extremely important to rigorously test the validity of these four fundamental laws of electromagnetism, as they form the foundation of electromagnetism, classical physics, and modern physics. In this article, the results obtained through physical experiments are presented. 2 Physical experiments 2.1 Physical experiments to test the validity of the Ampère force law and the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force 2.1.1 Physical experiments with a rotary electrical motor to test the validity of the Ampère force law and the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force For the experiments illustrated in Figure 1, an iron dumbbell rotor (with a length of 200mm and a diameter including magnets of 96mm), an iron stator (with a length of 200mm, an inner diameter of 116mm, and an outer diameter of 170mm), and an aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage (with a length of 200mm, an inner diameter of 97mm, and an outer diameter of 116mm) were designed and fabricated. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached N-pole outwardly to one protruding section of the iron dumbbell rotor, and permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached S-pole outwardly to the other protruding section of the same iron dumbbell rotor. As shown in Figure 1, the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage was fixed to the inside of the iron stator, and the iron dumbbell rotor was installed inside the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage rotatably to construct the rotary electrical motor. The rotary electrical motor constructed in this manner fully complies with the Ampère force law and the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force both are as stated above. However, the structure of the rotary electrical motor ensures that even if the Ampère force law and the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force do hold true and the motor works as the laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of its windings. Since the so-called Ampère force is the interaction force between the external magnetic field and the current-carrying conductor, so it is logical that when the external magnetic field’s provider is fixed, the current-carrying conductor will move, and vice versa, when the current-carrying conductor is fixed, the external magnetic field’s provider will move, when the current-carrying conductor is carrying current in the external magnetic field. Therefore, if the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does holds true, then when a current is applied to the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage as shown in Figure 1, the iron dumbbell rotor should rotate. However, regardless of the amount of current applied (instantaneous maximum current exceeding 500A), the iron dumbbell rotor did not rotate at all. Similarly, if the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does holds true, then when the iron dumbbell rotor is rotated, a voltage and a current should be generated between the middle terminal and the end terminal of the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage of the rotary electrical motor. However, even when the dumbbell rotor was rapidly rotated (instantaneous maximum speed exceeding 120rpm), neither measurable voltage nor measurable current was detected with a 10-volt voltmeter and a 500mA ammeter, respectively. These results imply that the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Ampère force law and the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force were found. These results also indicate that a conductor which is carrying a current itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field, and that a conductor which is cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force. The so-called Ampère force observed so far is not generated by a current-carrying conductor itself in a magnetic field, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux within (/in magnetic induction intensity) the closed loop. Similarly, the so-called motional electromotive force observed so far is not generated by a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the conductor cutting through magnetic field lines with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. This implies that neither of the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field nor the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does hold true. 2.1.2 Physical experiments with a counter-rotor electrical motor to test the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force For the physical experiment illustrated in Figure 2, an annular iron core which was 105mm in inner diameter, 160mm in outer diameter and 120mm in length was made. A solenoid winding consisting of 14 turns of insulated rectangular copper wire with a cross-sectional area of 3x9 mm 2 was installed on the annular iron core to form the stator. Two rotors, each with a diameter of 80mm and a length of 50mm, were made. Each rotor had a shaft of 20mm in diameter. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached N-pole-outwardly to the side surface of one of the two rotors to form the N-pole rotor and permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached S-pole-outwardly to the side surface of the other rotor to form the S-pole rotor. The N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor were set in line and lubricated between them to form the counter-rotating rotor set. The counter-rotating rotor set were installed inside the stator, and a counter-rotor electrical motor was consequently constructed. This electrical motor fully complies with the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force, as stated above. However, the structure of this electrical motor ensures that even if the Ampère force law and the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force hold true and the motor works as these laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of its windings. As illustrated on the left side of Figure 2, if the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does hold true, then, when the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor are rotated, no matter how they are rotated, as long as they are not rotated in the same direction and at the same speed, the solenoid winding should generate an electromotive force and a current. However, no matter how the rotors were rotated (instantaneous maximum speed exceeding 120rpm), the solenoid winding did not generate any measurable electromotive force or current with a 10-volt voltmeter and a 500mA ammeter, respectively. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force was found again. Furthermore, this physical experiment proves again that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force, that is, it does not generate a motional electromotive force. Therefore, the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does not hold true. The so-called motional electromotive force observed so far is not generated by a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the conductor cutting through magnetic field lines with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. Therefore, the so-called motional electromotive force of a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines does not truly exist. It is merely an illusion of the induced electromotive force which is generated by a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. Regardless of how a conductor cuts magnetic field lines, the conductor itself does not generate electromotive force at all. 2.1.3 Physical experiments with a rectangular closed loop to test the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force For the experiments shown in Figure 3, a thick-walled iron tube (comprising two half tubes) which was 18mm in inner diameter, 55mm in outer diameter and 80mm in length was made. Next, a rectangular winding with dimensions of 150mm by 200mm was made of 15 turns of insulated copper wire. The core of the copper wire is with a 1.5 mm2 cross-sectional area. The two edges with 150mm length of the rectangular winding were named as the first conductor and the second conductor, respectively. Then, two copper wire ends of the rectangular winding was connected to a 500mA ammeter in series, and a rectangular closed loop was formed. The first conductor of the rectangular closed loop was insulated and installed inside the thick-walled iron tube to make the first conductor to be a conductor segment which is shielded against magnetic field. The rectangular closed loop with the 500mA ammeter and the thick-walled iron tube installed is named as the test set. The external magnetic field is from a horseshoe permanent magnet, as shown in Figure 3. The horseshoe permanent magnet has permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached N-pole outwardly to form the N-pole and permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached S-pole outwardly to form the S-pole. The distance between the N-pole and the S-pole is 90mm, and the effective dimension of each pole is 120mmx400mm. When the test set was placed in the external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity outside and inside the thick-walled iron tube were measured using a Gauss meter (with a measurement range:1Gauss ~2Tesla). The results showed that the magnetic induction intensity outside the thick-walled iron tube at the second conductor was 258 Gauss, the magnetic induction intensity inside the thick-walled iron tube at the first conductor was 3 Gauss. This implies that when the test set is placed in an external magnetic field, as illustrated in Figure 3, the magnetic induction intensity inside the thick-walled iron tube is significantly lower than those in the place occupied by the second conductor, due to the shielding effect against magnetic field of the thick-walled iron tube. Therefore, if the test set is moved in an external magnetic field in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, as illustrated by V directions in Figure 3, then, the second conductor will cut through magnetic field lines much more than the first conductor does. This implies that if the test set is moved within the external magnetic field, as illustrated in Figure 3, and if the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force does hold true, there must be a current in the rectangular closed loop of the test set. However, when the test set was placed in the external magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet and mounted on a lubricated track allowing the test set to move only in two directions (back and forward) perpendicular to the external magnetic field, regardless of the test set was rapidly moved in the external magnetic field in the direction perpendicular to magnetic field as illustrated in Figure 3, no measurable current was detected with the 500mA ammeter installed. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force was found. This indicates that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force. In other words, a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate a motional electromotive force. In addition, if in the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 3, an electromotive force was generated, then it implies that even there is no change in magnetic flux within a closed loop, there is still a current generated in the closed loop. This definitely contradicts the Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction which states that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates an electric current. This Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction is a law which has been experimentally and logically proved and is fully valid. Therefore, the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force has no way to hold true. 2.1.4 Physical experiments with a counter-rotor electrical motor to test the validity of the Ampère force law For the experiments illustrated in Figure 4, the device shown in Figure 2 was used, since the device shown in Figure 2 does also fully comply with the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field. As illustrated on the left side of Figure 4, if the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, then, when the solenoid winding of the electrical motor is loaded with a current, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor should rotate in opposite direction. However, regardless of how the solenoid winding was loaded with current, the rotors did not rotate at all. Even when the solenoid winding was loaded with an instantaneous maximum current exceeding 500A, the rotors still did not rotate at all. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field was found again. This physical experiment proves again that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field. Therefore, the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does not hold true. The so-called Ampère force observed so far is not generated by a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field itself, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. The so-called Ampère force does not truly exist. It is merely an illusion of the electromagnetic force which is achieved by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. 2.1.5 Physical experiments with a rectangular closed loop to test the validity of the Ampère force law For the experiments shown in Figure 5, the device shown in Figure 3 was used, however, the 500mA ammeter installed was replaced with a battery capable of supplying up to 19.9 Ampère of current, as illustrated in Figure 5. When the rectangular closed loop is placed in an external magnetic field and is constrained to move only perpendicular to the direction of the external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity inside the thick-walled iron tube must be significantly lower than those in the place occupied by the second conductor, due to the shielding effect against magnetic field of the thick-walled iron tube. Therefore, if the rectangular closed loop is loaded with current in an external magnetic field, as illustrated in Figure 5, and if the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, the second conductor will experience a force much bigger than the first conductor does. This implies that if the rectangular closed loop is loaded with current in an external magnetic field, and if the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, the rectangular closed loop must move. However, when the rectangular closed loop was placed in the external magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet, and mounted on a lubricated track which allows the rectangular closed loop to move in only two directions (back and forward) perpendicular to the external magnetic field, no measurable movement was observed, regardless of how the rectangular closed loop was loaded with currents. Even if the battery was controlled up to 19.9 Amperes of current (under the voltage of 2.6V), and the rectangular closed loop was with the total current of 298.5A, there was still no measurable movement observed. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field was found. This implies that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field. Therefore, the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does not hold true. In addition, if in the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 2, an Ampère force was generated, then it implies that the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force does hold true. This is because that the process of a current-carrying conductor experiencing a force in a magnetic field and the process of a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generating electromotive force are from the same nature. However, if the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force does hold true, it implies that even there is no change in magnetic flux within a closed loop, there is still a current generated in the closed loop, as the physical experiments stated in Figure 3. This definitely contradicts the Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction which states that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates an electric current. Because this Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction is a law which has been experimentally and logically proved and is fully valid. Therefore, the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field violates the Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction which states that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates an electric current. Therefore, the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field has no way to hold true. 2.1.6 Physical experiments with a magnetically-shielded-through-core coil to test the validity of the Ampère force law and the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force For the experiments shown in Figure 6, a copper conductor (with a diameter of 6mm) was insulated and installed inside a thick-walled iron tube (with an inner diameter of 18mm, an outer diameter of 55mm, and a length of 400mm). One end of the copper conductor was electrically connected to the thick-walled iron tube to form a coil to carry current. This coil was termed as a magnetically-shielded-through-core coil. The structure of this magnetically-shielded-through-core coil ensures that even if the Ampère force law and the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force hold true and the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil works as these two laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil. The external magnetic field was provided by a horseshoe magnet. The horseshoe magnet had permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached N-pole outwardly to form the N-pole and had permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached S-pole outwardly to form the S-pole. The distance between the N-pole and the S-pole was 70mm, and the effective dimension of each pole was 100mmx100mm. When the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil was placed in the external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity outside the coil and the magnetic induction intensity inside the coil were measured using a Gauss meter (with a measurement range: 1Gauss ~2Tesla). The results showed that the magnetic induction intensity outside the coil was 308 Gauss, the magnetic induction intensity inside the coil was 1 Gauss. This indicates that when this coil is placed in an external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity of the place occupied by the thick-walled iron tube is significantly higher than those in the place occupied by the copper conductor inside the thick-walled iron tube, due to the shielding effect against magnetic field of the thick-walled iron tube. Because the thick-walled iron tube and the inner copper conductor are connected in series, when this coil is placed in a magnetic field and is powered, if the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, both the thick-walled iron tube and the inner copper conductor should experience forces in opposite directions. However, the magnitudes of these two forces are different due to the different magnetic induction intensity at the places occupied by the thick-walled iron tube and at the places occupied by the copper conductor inside the thick-walled iron tube. Therefore, the resultant force should not be equal to zero, thus the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil should experience an Ampère force in total and should move. However, when the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil was placed in the external magnetic field and mounted on a lubricated track which allows the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil to move only in two directions (back and forward) perpendicular to the magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet, regardless of the amount of the DC current applied (with a maximum current of 50A), the coil remained stationary. Moreover, regardless of how rapidly the coil was moved perpendicular to the magnetic field direction (speeds exceeding 3m/s), neither measurable voltage nor measurable current was detected in the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil, with a 10-volt voltmeter and a 500mA ammeter, respectively. These results imply that the physical experiment counterexamples to the so-called Ampère force law and to the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force were found again. These results indicate that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field, a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate electromotive force. In short, these results indicate that a current-carrying conductor itself does not generate a magnetic field, otherwise, the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil must interact with the external magnetic field and must establish the relationship between electric field, magnetic field, as well as electromagnetic force. That is, the physical experiment counterexample to the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductor was also found. 2.2 Physical experiments to test the validity of the Oersted's law of electromagnetism For the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7, three rectangle coils were made, each of them measuring 350mm by 200mm and consisting of 30 turns of insulated copper wire, and the core of the wire is with a cross-sectional area of 1.5 mm 2 . One of the two 350mm long edges of each rectangle coil was designated as the first conductor stick, and the other edge of the same length was designated as the second conductor stick. The rectangle coils were designated as the current-carrying closed loop 0. When the second conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 0 was insulated and installed inside a thin-walled iron tube (comprising two half tubes) with an inner diameter of 120mm, an outer diameter of 155mm and a length of 115mm, then the current-carrying closed loop 1 was consequently constructed. Similarly, when the second conductor stick of other current-carrying closed loop 0 was insulated and installed inside a thick-walled iron tube (comprising two half tubes) with an inner diameter of 120mm, an outer diameter of 194mm and a length of 115mm, then the current-carrying closed loop 2 was consequently constructed. As illustrated in Figure 7, the distance between the magnetic induction intensity measure point P 0 and the center line of the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 0, the distance between the magnetic induction intensity measure point P 1 and the center line of the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 1, and the distance between the magnetic induction intensity measure point P 2 and the center line of the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 2 were all uniformly set to 30mm. In the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7, the current-carrying closed loop 0, the current-carrying closed loop 1 and the current-carrying closed loop 2 were each load with the same current of 593 Amperes (19.9Amperes times 30 turns) using a battery controlled up to 19.9 Amperes of current (under the voltage of 8.2-8.5 V respectively). In the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7, the magnetic induction intensity B 0 at the magnetic induction intensity measure point P 0 , the magnetic induction intensity B 1 at the magnetic induction intensity measure point P 1 and the magnetic induction intensity B 2 at the magnetic induction intensity measure point P 2 were measured using a Gauss meter (with a measurement range: 1Gauss ~2Tesla). The results were: B 0 was 9 Gauss, B 1 was 5 Gauss, B 2 was 2 Gauss. This indicates that the magnetic induction intensity at P 0 > the magnetic induction intensity at P 1 > the magnetic induction intensity at P 2 . This implies that the magnetic induction intensity of the magnetic field surrounding the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop decreases, as the magnetic conductivity of the iron tube increases, assuming that the current-carrying closed loop 0 has an iron tube with zero thickness. That is, the magnetic induction intensity of the magnetic field surrounding the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop decreases, as the magnetic conductivity of the materials inside the current-carrying closed loop increases. However, if the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the conductor holds true, the magnetic induction intensity at P 0 , at P 1 and at P 2 must be increasing in this order or at least remains the same, since the offset portion of the magnetic induction intensity of the magnetic field at the measure point by the magnetic field generated by the second conductor stick decreases, as the magnetic conductivity of the iron tube increases. In fact, there is no way for the iron tube to block the magnetic field lines generated by the first conductor stick at the first conductor stick. This is because, logically, nothing can block a stream at its source, as long as the stream exists. Therefore, the results obtained in the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7 indicate that the circular magnetic field surrounding the first conductor stick is not generated by the first conductor stick, even if it is carrying current. In other words, the first conductor stick itself does not generate a circular magnetic field surrounding itself, even it is carrying current. This implies that a current-carrying conductor itself does not generate a magnetic field, and implies that a current element Idl itself does not generate magnetic field, that is, a conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, and a moving independent charge all do not generate magnetic field, spontaneously. In fact, the circular magnetic field surrounding a current-carrying conductor can only be generated by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. The magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of a current-carrying conductor has to surround the current-carrying conductor to extend to the other side of the closed loop to form a closed magnetic field loop, therefore, it can easily be mistaken for the magnetic field generated by the current-carrying conductor itself. Thus, the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductor does not hold true. These physical experiments imply that the physical experiment counterexample to the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductor was found. Therefore, the Oersted's law of electromagnetism does not hold true, and correspondingly, the Biot-Savart law does not hold true either. In addition, a closed loop with a constant current does not generate a magnetic field, it only maintains the existing magnetic field without energy consumption, the electrical energy consumed in this process is caused by the electric resistance, but not by the magnetic field. 2.3 Physical experiments to test the validity of the Lorentz force law For the physical experiment illustrated in Figure 8, an annular iron core which was 900 mm in inner diameter, 1140 mm in outer diameter and 810 mm in length was made and was used as the stator. Twenty high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes which was 10 mm in inner diameter, 40 mm in outer diameter and 960 mm in length were installed inside the stator, as illustrated in Figure 8. Two rotors, each with a diameter of 800 mm and a length of 400 mm, were made. Each rotor had a shaft of 80 mm in diameter. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached N-pole-outwardly to the side surface of one of the two rotors to form the N-pole rotor. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached S-pole-outwardly to the side surface of the other rotor to form the S-pole rotor. The N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor were set in line and lubricated between them to form the counter-rotating rotor set. The counter-rotating rotor set were installed inside the stator, as illustrated in Figure 8. Twenty electron guns, each with a diameter of 80 mm, a length of 600 mm, a working current of 1 A and a working voltage of 30 kV, were mounted to the stator in such a way that one electron gun was corresponded with one high-temperature ceramic insulating tube. The electron current (beam) from each electron guns was directed through one of the high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes, respectively. Each electron gun, its beam and one conductor were connected in series to form a closed loop consisting of the electron current for each electron guns, as illustrated in Figure 8, and an electrical motor was consequently constructed. This electrical motor fully complies with the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force. This electrical motor was intentionally designed as a physical experiment counterexample to the Lorentz force law. That is, under the condition that the requirements of the Lorentz force law are fully satisfied, even if the trajectory of the moving independent charge is forced, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop consisting of the moving independent charge. In other words, as illustrated in Figure 8, if the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force does hold true, then when the electron guns start shooting electrons into the high-temperature ceramic insulating tube, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor should experience the so-called Lorentz force of opposite direction and should rotate in opposite direction. However, regardless of how intensive the electron guns shot electrons into the high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes, neither the N-pole rotor nor the S-pole rotor did rotate. This physical experiment demonstrates that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field itself does not experience a force. Therefore, the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force does not hold true. Furthermore, if in this physical experiment, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor did rotate, then the law of conservation of energy is violated. This is because that in this process, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor would produce output power. However, this output power is produced out of nothing, because the kinetic energy of the electrons shot into the high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes would not be reduced by the so-called Lorentz force, but would be released as heat. This indicates that if in this physical experiment, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor did rotate, then this physical experiment violates the law of conservation of energy, that is, the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force violates the law of conservation of energy. The so-called Lorentz force observed so far is not generated by a moving independent charge in a magnetic field itself, but it is generated by the whole of a general closed loop consisting of the electron current (beam) of the moving independent charge and displacement currents, with a change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop. That is, the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve electromagnetic force acting on moving independent charges in a magnetic field, any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic force acting on moving independent charges in a magnetic field. These displacement currents are among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at. And this general closed loop is a closed loop of electric field. The experiments shown in Figure 8 demonstrates that there is a counterexample to the Lorentz force law, that is, the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force does not hold true. The common feature of all the physics experiments conducted above in this article is that they fully comply with the relevant fundamental laws of electromagnetism, but even if the relevant fundamental laws of electromagnetism do hold true and the device utilized in the experiments work as the physical laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loops contained in the experiments. However, it is found that if there is no change in magnetic flux within a closed loop, no electromagnetic phenomena can be achieved. Therefore, a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within a closed loop is the indispensable necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving electromagnetic phenomena, such as the Ampère force, the Faraday motional electromotive force, the Oersted magnetic field and the Lorentz force. 3 Discussion 3.1 On why can a physical law that has been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period still have counterexamples and be disproved? This is one of the most critical questions in the field of science and technology, and therefore the logic of physical law verification needs to be clarified. Here, the physical law refers to all scientific laws. 3.1.1 Physical laws cannot be verified solely through physical experiments For a physical law, to be true or not to be true is a critical question. Physical law must be extracted upwards and over the relevant specific physical experiments to describe necessities of the natural world, which is behind the relevant specific physical experiments. What physical law describes is the necessity that it is known how it works, but it is unknown why it so works, however what theorem describes is the necessity that it is known how it works, and it is also known why it so works. Therefore, the inductive method is suitable for constructing physical laws, but the deductive method is appropriate for formulating theorems. When a physical law is extracted using the inductive method, the scope governed by the physical law will be much expanded to include areas where the physical law has not been and cannot be verified by physical experiments. This is because there are infinitely many cases in these areas that would need to be verified by physical experiments, yet both the amount and methods of physical experiments that can be conducted are limited. Therefore, physical laws cannot be verified solely through physical experiments. However, since physical laws must be true in accordance with the objective reality, they must be proved true through physical experiments (encompassing all scientific experiments). In addition, physical laws must also be true in all possible situations, thus, physical laws must be also verified through logic experiments. This is because that physical experiments cannot deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in all possible situations, whereas logic experiments can address this issue, since the working methodology for logic experiments is to intentionally seek counterexamples only, rather than verifying a physical law one experiment by one experiment. In other word, physical experiments do not have the ability to thoroughly pickup all counterexamples of a physical law, but logic experiments do have this ability. Therefore, physical laws must be verified through the combination of physical experiment verification process and logic experiment verification process. That is, a physical law must be verified by both physical experiments and logic experiments before it can be considered being a genuine physical law. However, almost all of the physical laws established so far have only been verified through physical experiments, but not verified through logic experiments. Therefore, it is not surprising that some physical laws and even some fundamental physical laws have counterexamples, even these physical laws having been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period. Logically, no matter how many physical experiments prove a physical law true, as long as there is one physical experiment counterexample or one logic experiment counterexample found, this physical law does not hold true definitely. These are the reasons why a physical law that has been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period can still have counterexamples and can be founded invalid. In other words, there are two reasons why a physical law that has been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period can still be invalid. The first reason is that almost all of the physical laws established so far have only been verified through physical experiments, but not have been verified through logic experiments. The second reason is that there is an inevitability determined by the logic defects of the inductive method. That is, when extracting physical law by the inductive method from the specific physical experiments conducted, the scope governed by the physical law will be much expanded and will cover an area where the physical law has not been verified and cannot be verified by physical experiments, and this area is here termed as the augmented area. That is, there will be a territory that is governed by the relevant physical law, but has not been physical-experimentally verified and cannot be physical-experimentally verified. That is, when a physical law is established by inductive method based on the results of physical experiments, such as observations, measurements, and other material processes, then as illustrated in the cone of the physical laws in Fig. 9 , what the physical law states produces an additional area, that is the augmented area, in which there are places where the relevant physical law has not been and cannot be verified by physical experiments. This is because that in this area there are infinite cases including some unknown kinds of cases need to be verified by physical experiments, but the amount and method of physical experiments which can be conducted are both limited. Therefore, physical law cannot be verified solely through physical experiments. Actually, the fact that physical laws cannot be verified solely through physical experiments leads to the following conclusions: A physical law cannot be proved true by physical experiments from which this physical law extracted. A physical law cannot be proved true by physical experiments designed right in the scope governed by this physical law, even if the results of these physical experiments comply with what this physical law states. A physical law cannot be proved true by any physical experiments, even if the results of these physical experiments comply with what this physical law states. A fake physical law can also be seemingly proved true by physical experiments. Physical experiment is only the necessary condition required to prove physical law true, but not the sufficient condition required to prove physical law true, even if a physical law is proved true by each and every physical experiments conducted, the physical law may still be false. A case proving a physical law true cannot invalidate a case that disproves this physical law. However, a case disproving a physical law definitely invalidates a case that proves this physical law true, and then this physical law does not hold true at all. If Person A asserts that he has disproved physical law Y using process X, while Person B asserts that the physical law Y is true, because various processes have all proved the physical law Y true. Then actually, Person B is completely and logically mistaken. Since the only way to refute Person A is to demonstrate that the process X used by Person A is flawed, and any other attempts to prove Person A wrong are logically incoherent. A physical law must be proved true in both physical experiment verification and logic experiment verification before becoming a real physical law. It is a logic mistake that if the results of repeated physical experiments comply with what a physical law states, then the physical law is consequently concluded to be true. A physical law that has been proven to be correct by a large number of physical experiments may still be found to have counterexamples, and it may still not be true. A physical law that drives great strides in human civilization may still be found to have counterexamples, and it may still not be true. These conclusions should help people to get better understanding of the logic of physical law verification and to get better understanding of the relations between physical law and physical experiments. 3.1.2 The double-half verification law for physical law verification As stated above, since physical laws must be true in contrast with objective reality, physical law must be proved true in physical experiments. In addition, physical law must be proved true in all possible situations before becoming a real physical law. The requirement that physical laws must be proved true in all possible situations before becoming a real physical law implies that it needs an infinite number of different physical experiments including all possible sorts of physical experiments to verify a physical law. Since it is impossible to conduct an infinite number of different physical experiments, not only that, but it is also impossible to complete even a finite number of different physical experiments due to the limited conditions and other reasons, for example, due to the time and cost reasons. Therefore, physical experiments cannot deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in all possible situations, or deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in the situations of vast array of different physical experiments. Therefore, it is impossible to truly prove physical laws solely through physical experiments, but logic process (i.e. logic experiment) can deal with the problem of verifying the physical laws in all possible situations, as the logic experiments do not require examining each case individually within the scope governed by the physical law. Therefore, the verification of physical law can only be achieved through the combination of physical experiment verification process and logic experiment verification process. Physical laws do not interpretate the entirety of related physical experiments, instead, they are the upward conclusion, abstract conclusion, and inductive conclusion derived from those experiments. Because upward-raised, abstracted, and inductively-concluded, physical laws extend far beyond the scope where the original physical experiments can go through with and verify, physical law cannot be proved true by the physical experiments which these physical laws extracted from. Specifically, this is because that physical law states more general things than the physical experiments which it is extracted from can do, and governs more universal processes than the physical experiments which it is extracted from can do, and reveals more profound logic relations than the physical experiments which it is extracted from can do, and finally contains the cases that do not exist in the scope of the physical experiments which it is extracted from. That is, physical law goes far beyond the scope where the physical experiments which it is extracted from can reach. Again, because upward-raised, abstracted, and inductively-concluded, physical law also cannot be proved true by the physical experiments which are designed right in the scope governed by the same physical law, even if the results of these physical experiments match what the physical law states. This is because that these physical experiments are only one or several different physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law, where there are infinite different physical experiments exist. This means that it is entirely possible that there are physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical laws that fully meet the requirements of the relevant physical law, but whose results are contrary to the results of all existing physical experiments which prove the physical law true. Physical law still cannot be verified by any other physical experiments, even if the results of these physical experiments are consistent with those this physical law states, because any other physical experiments which can be conducted are still only one or several different physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law, where there are infinite different physical experiments exist. And the same, this means that it is entirely possible that there are physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law, that fully comply with the requirements of the relevant physical law, but whose results are contrary to the results of all existing physical experiments. These statements mean that it is entirely possible that there are physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law that fully meet the requirements of the relevant physical law, but whose results are contrary to the results of all existing physical experiments which prove the physical law true. Physical law is not an interpretation of a certain physical experiment, nor an interpretation of a certain type of physical experiments, but only an interpretation of a certain natural necessity. In essence, once a physical law is established, it is no longer directly related to any specific physical experiment, including the physical experiments which the physical law is extracted from and the physical experiments which are designed right in the scope governed by the physical law. All in all, physical law is general, universal and absolute, that is, physical law manifests itself wherever, whenever and whatever, so it is beyond the reach of any physical experiment, therefore, physical law cannot be proved true solely through physical experiments. And the issue that physical law cannot be proved true solely through physical experiments logically implies that a fake physical law can also be proved true by physical experiments. So, if it is wanted to verify a physical law in all possible physical experiments within the physical law’s scope, the only way is to use the process verification of logic experiments, because logic experiment verification is the only process that can deal with verification in all possible situations, as logic experiment verification only searches for counterexamples and does not examine the validity case by case over the scope governed by the physical law. However, most people believe that physical experiments are the way to verify physical law, but in fact this is a logic mistake. In other words, it is a logic mistake that if as long as the results of physical experiments are consistent with what a physical law states, then it is concluded that the physical law is proved true. Why many physical laws are falsified after a long period of domination of mankind? The fundamental reason for this is here. The fundamental reason for this is that the relevant physical laws are only verified by physical experiment verification but not by logic experiment verification which is also an indispensable process. In other words, since physical experiment cannot deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in all possible situations, but logic experiment can deal with this issue. Therefore, physical law must be verified by the combination of physical experiment and logic experiment, that is, physical law must be verified by physical experiment and must be verified by logic experiment before it becomes a real physical law. Therefore, no matter how large number of physical experiments prove a physical law true, as long as there is one physical experiment counterexample or one logic experiment counterexample found, this physical law does not hold true definitely. Similarly, no matter how large number of logic experiments prove a physical law true, as long as there is one physical experiment counterexample or one logic experiment counterexample found, this physical law does not hold true definitely. What stated above indicate that the logic defect of the inductive method makes the combination of physical experiment verification and logic experiment verification to become to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the verification of physical law, and the physical experiment verification is only the necessary condition, but not the sufficient condition for the verification of physical law. In other words, physical experiments only possess the necessity in verifying physical law, but do not possess the sufficiency in verifying it, physical experiments only possess the sufficiency in falsifying physical law, but do not possess the necessity in falsifying physical law, because the physical experiments are only the half way of verifying physical law. Because there are two half ways of verifying physical law, if a physical law is false in any half way, it must be false, and if a physical law is true in this half way, it is not certainly true. That is, no matter how large the amount of physical experiment verifications is, which prove a physical law true, it still cannot verify the physical law solely through physical experiments, but as long as there is one physical experiment verification that falsifies a certain physical law, then this physical law must be false and disappear. In the same way, no matter how big the number of logic experiment verifications is, which prove a physical law true, it still cannot verify the validity of the physical law solely through physical experiments, but as long as there is one logic experiment verification that falsifies a certain physical law, then this physical law must be false and disappear. As illustrated in Fig. 10 , in the process of verifying physical law, the physical experiment verification is only the half way of the process, and the logic experiment verification is only the other half way of the process, a physical law must be verified in both of physical experiment verification process and logic experiment verification process, any of these half verification process are indispensable, and if a physical law is falsified in any of these two verification processes, then this physical law does not hold true. This statement is here termed as the double-half verification law for verifying physical law, and shorted as the double-half verification law. Of course, even if a physical law is verified by both of physical experiment verification and logic experiment verification, then this physical law will become to be a current-effective physical law, but not a physical law forever. As stated above, physical law manifests itself wherever, whenever and whatever, however, wherever, whenever and whatever, and is only effective before it is disproved. With the time going, there is still a risk for the physical law verified by the double-half verification law to be disproved. However, this does not imply that physical law can be verified only through physical experiments, because the physical law that is verified by the double-half verification law is far more profound and far more stable than the physical law that is verified solely through physical experiments. Therefore, the physical law that is verified by the double-half verification law is far more essential and stable than the physical law that is verified solely through physical experiments. From Ptolemy's geocentric theory to Copernicus's heliocentric model, from Aristotle's theory of free fall to Galileo's law of free fall, and from Newton's laws of motion to Einstein's special theory of relativity (in fact, it can be considered that Einstein disproved Newton's laws of motion), each represents disruptive advancements in natural science, however, at their core, these advancements demonstrate that the double-half verification law is the key for physical law verification. 3.1.3 The general content of logic experiments The above stated logic experiment verification is to use people's philosophical ability and logic ability to challenge and judge the validity of physical law. The falsification by logic processes is to challenge and judge the validity of a physical law, and if a physical law cannot be falsified, then it is determined that the physical law is verified in the logic experiment verification process. That is, the falsification by logic processes is used to replace the verification by logic processes. The falsification by logic processes usually includes: the falsification by counterexample of physical experiment, the falsification by logic combing, the falsification by thought experiment, the falsification by existing laws (e.g., the falsification process by the law of causality and the falsification by the law of conservation of energy, etc.), the falsification by the law of inheritance of symmetry, the falsification by the indispensability of the necessary and sufficient conditions, the falsification by the must-manifesting law of physical law, and the falsification by the existence of the interaction relations. The so-called falsification by counterexample of physical experiment: Use logic processes to design as many as possible physical experiments which fully match the requirements of the relevant physical law, but they are logically different from the physical experiments which have proved the relevant physical law true, and then conduct all the physical experiments. If the result of any of these physical experiments is inconsistent with the result stated by the relevant physical law, then that physical experiment is the counterexample of physical experiment of the relevant physical law, then the relevant physical law is falsified by the counterexample of physical experiment, that is, the physical law is disproved. The so-called falsification by logic combing: Make rigorous logic examinations of the extracting process (law construction process) of the relevant physical law to determine whether there are logic defects in this process, and if any logic defect is found in this process, then the physical law is falsified by logic combing, and that is, the physical law is disproved. The so-called falsification by thought experiment: Use imaginations to design as many as possible physical experiments that are difficult or impossible to be implemented in reality, but fully conformed to the requirements of the relevant physical law. Then use logic examinations to determine the results of the physical experiments. If the result of any of the thought experiment does not match the result stated by the relevant physical law, then the relevant physical law is falsified by thought experiment, that is, the relevant physical law is disproved. The so-called falsification by existing laws: Use existing physical laws to examine the validity of relevant physical law. For example, to falsify a physical law by the law of causality and by the law of conservation of energy, etc. If the relevant physical law is contrary to the existing physical law, then at least one of these two physical laws is false, and if the existing physical law is found to be true, then the relevant physical law is falsified by the existing law, that is, the physical law is disproved. Because the physical laws of nature are interrelated systems, no physical law can contradict any other physical laws. When using existing physical laws to examine the validity of relevant physical law, existing fundamental physical laws such as the law of causality, the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter are usually used, because these fundamental physical laws are simple and stable. The so-called falsification by the law of inheritance of symmetry: Examine whether the symmetry of cause and the symmetry of result, which the relevant physical law states, are consistent with each other or not. If the symmetry of cause and the symmetry of result, which the relevant physical law states, are not consistent with each other, then the relevant physical law is falsified by the law of inheritance of symmetry, that is, the relevant physical law is disproved. This is because the symmetry of cause and the symmetry of result must be consistent with each other, otherwise, it will violate logics. This is because that symmetrical causes can only lead to symmetrical results, but not asymmetrical results, asymmetrical causes can only lead to asymmetrical results, but not symmetrical results, symmetrical results can only arise from symmetrical causes, but not from asymmetrical causes, and asymmetrical results can only arise from asymmetrical causes, but not from symmetrical causes. This is defined as the law of inheritance of symmetry. The law of inheritance of symmetry is an irresistible law that explains the universal rules that nature has. For example, if a physical law states that magnetic field is generated by an isotropic ball, then this physical must be invalid. This is because that magnetic field has direction, but the isotropic ball does not. The so-called falsification by the indispensability of the necessary and sufficient conditions: Examine whether the relevant physical law states the necessary and sufficient conditions for the physical experiment which the relevant physical law is extracted from, and if the relevant physical law does not state the necessary and sufficient conditions for the physical experiment which the relevant physical law is extracted from, then the relevant physical law is indispensably falsified by the indispensability of the necessary and sufficient conditions, that is, the relevant physical law is disproved. The physical law must state the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to manifest itself, and this sufficient and necessary conditions are the minimum requirement for the relevant physical law to manifest itself, and the necessary and sufficient conditions are indispensable therein. If a physical law does not state the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to manifest itself, then the physical law must be upward raised too much, which in turn will lead to the scope governed by this physical law expanded too much, and eventually lead to the invalidity of the physical law. The so-called falsification by the must-manifesting law of physical law: Examine whether a physical law does manifest itself or not under the condition that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the manifestation of the physical law are fulfilled, and if the physical law does not manifest itself, then the physical law is falsified by the must-manifesting law of physical law, that is, this physical law is disproved. For example, if a process belongs to the process which the physical law X states, then the physical law X must manifest itself in this process, which is a necessity determined by the nature of physical law. Because if this physical law does not manifest itself in this process, it means that the physical law is resistible, and the resistible physical law means that it is not true physical law. This is defined here as the must-manifesting law of physical law. For example, in any form of energy conversion process, the law of conservation of energy cannot be unmanifested, and in the measurement of the quantity of any form of matter, the law of conservation of matter cannot be unmanifested. If a physical law should manifest itself, but it does not manifest itself, then this physical law does certainly not hold true. And if in a physical experiment, a physical law should manifest itself, but it does not manifest itself, then, this physical experiment is in essence the counterexample of physical experiment of the physical law. And the claimed manifestation processes of this physical laws are nothing more than the illusion of the fact that is achieved by other physical law which does hold true. For example, in a motor, the magnetic induction intensity in the slot (the grooves) is almost zero, but the wire in the slot is the fundamental current-carrying conductor. This means that the Ampère force generated by the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field should be almost zero, so the motor cannot work, but in fact the motor does work. This shows that in the motor, the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does not manifest. This essentially proves that there is a counterexample to the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, and the Ampère force law does not hold true. The so-called falsification by the existence of the interaction relations: Examine whether the interaction relation for the results stated by a physical law exists or not, and if the interaction relation for the results stated by a physical law does not exist, then the physical law is falsified by the falsification by the existence of the interaction relations, that is, the physical law is disproved. For example, if a physical law claims that Y moving in the direction perpendicular to the physical field X produces Z by the interaction of the physical field X, this physical law is obviously untenable. This is because that it is as absurd as saying that an object moving in the direction of the contour of the Earth's gravitational field does work on the gravitational field or gains energy from the gravitational field. This is also because that it is impossible for a physical field to act in its vertical direction (i.e., in the vertical direction of the field line of physical field), which is here defined as the law of no interaction on vertical direction of physical field. There should be more logic experiments which can be used to examine the validity of physical laws, however, the logic experiments stated above are simple and easy to use. There are many physical laws in the fields of whole nature science, however, as shown in Fig. 11 , a big portion of the physical laws established so far are only verified by physical experiments, but not verified by logic experiments. In the process of establishing the physical laws so far, humans have basically only emphasized the half verification that is physical experiment verification, and have ignored the other half verification that is the logic experiment verification. As a result, a big portion of the physical laws have been recognized as the real physical laws up to now without the undergoing of logic experiment verification process, so it is important to re-verify the existing physical laws which have not been verified by logic experiment verification process, and then some new physical laws may be discovered. Therefore, it is not strange things that some physical laws and even some fundamental physical laws are disproved. These are the answers why a physical law that has been proved true by massive cases of physical experiments for a long time can still be disproved. And in essence, this is because that there is an inevitability determined by the logic defects of the inductive method. This implies that if re-verify the physical laws established so far with the logic experiment verification, that is, with the double-half verification law proposed above, some new laws may be discovered. Regarding the counterexamples to the fundamental laws of electromagnetism discovered in this research, the reason why the Ampère's force law, the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force, the Oersted's law of electromagnetism, and the Lorentz's force law do not hold true is not due to that the phenomena observed in their experiments are wrong, but is because that the electromagnetic scientist of that time mistakenly attributed the relevant electromagnetic phenomena achievable only by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop to the electromagnetic phenomena that are achieved by parts of the closed loop. That is, they mistakenly made a conclusion that the relevant electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by a conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, and by the current beam of a moving independent charge. 3.2 On the working process of electromagnetic equipment and devices built by humans so far For example, in existing electrical generators, the winding wires are concentrated in the grooves of the generator, but the magnetic induction intensity in the grooves is almost zero. According to the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force, the existing generators should not work. However, the existing electrical generators are designed in such a way that the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their winding changes during operation. This complies with the requirement of the Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction which states that a change in magnetic flux within closed loop generates electricity. This is why the existing electrical generator functions. This implies that the existing electrical generators do not comply with the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force, that does not hold true. For example, in existing electrical motors, their winding wires are also concentrated in the grooves of the motors, but the magnetic induction intensity in the grooves is almost zero. According to the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the existing motors should not work. However, existing electrical motors are designed to change the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings when they are working. Thus, the fact that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates electromagnetic force is inadvertently utilized in existing electrical motors. This is why existing electrical motors can work. This implies that existing electrical motors do not comply with the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, that does not hold true. For example, in existing fast current transformers, they appear to measure the circular magnetic field generated by the beam itself, but they are actually measuring the magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of the beam. Since the magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of the beam has to surround the beam to extend to the other side of the closed loop to form a closed magnetic field loop. Therefore, it is easy to mistake this for a magnetic field generated by the beam itself. If it is assumed that a beam is merely a segment not part of a closed loop and generates a circular magnetic field surrounding itself, then, the probability for the beam to generate a circular magnetic field under the right-hand rule is exactly the same as the probability for it to generate a circular magnetic field under the left-hand rule. This is because the clockwise direction and counterclockwise direction are perfectly symmetrical for the beam. So, there is no way for the beam itself to generate any magnetic field. Therefore, the beam itself cannot generate any magnetic field, and the so-called Oersted's circular magnetic field surrounding the beam does not actually exist. It is nothing more than an illusion of the magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of the beam, which has to surround the beam to extend to the other side of the closed loop to form a closed magnetic field loop. The current (beam) of the moving particle and the displacement currents among the point the particle starts moving from, the route the particle moves along and the point the particle ends up the moving at are connected in series within the closed loop. Thus, there are general closed loops consisting of the beam and the displacement currents within existing fast current transformers. For example, in existing mass spectrometers, the trajectory of a moving single particle appears to be curved by the so-called Lorentz force generated by the moving single particle itself, but in reality, it is curved by the electromagnetic force generated by a general closed loop consisting of the moving single particle with a change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop. The curving of the trajectory of the moving single particle in the magnetic field causes this change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop. When moving at the same speed in the same magnetic field, the electromagnetic force generated by the general closed loop consisting of the current beam of the moving particles will create different trajectories based on the different mass-to-charge ratios of the particles, thereby forming the mass spectrum. A charge moving appears as a beam and a current segment, but in reality, it forms a closed loop consisting of the current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at. This general closed loop constitutes a closed electric field loop. The current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents, among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at, are connected in series within the closed loop. For example, in existing cyclotrons, the so-called Lorentz force curves the trajectory of the moving charge while the acceleration electric field accelerates the moving charge. This sequence is repeated cyclically. However, the electromagnetic force that curves the trajectory of the moving charge is not generated by the movement of the moving independent charge in a magnetic field itself. Instead, it is generated by the closed loop consisting of the current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at. Within existing cyclotrons, the closed loop which allows them to work is not only consisting of the current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at, but also is consisting of the acceleration electric field. Electromagnetism is currently constructed based on the assumption that electromagnetic phenomena, such as the so-called Ampère force, the so-called Faraday's motional electromotive force, the so-called Oersted's circular magnetic field, and the so-called Lorentz force, are achieved by a conductor segment Δl itself, a differential conductor segment dl itself, a current element Idl itself, a current beam of the moving independent charge itself, and by the displacement current itself. However, electromagnetic phenomena can only be achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. Anything smaller than the whole of a closed loop, such as conductor segment Δl, differential conductor segment dl, current element Idl and current beam of the moving independent charge, cannot achieve electromagnetic phenomenon at all. Actually, if any element which is smaller than the whole of a closed loop achieves any electromagnetic phenomenon, then the law of conservation of energy is violated, and if a closed loop (or general closed loop) achieves any electromagnetic phenomenon without a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop, then the law of conservation of energy is violated, too. The only thing that can achieve electromagnetic phenomena is a closed loop (or general closed loop) with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. The existing electromagnetic theory, the electromagnetic equipment and devices designed according to the existing electromagnetic theory can still be used. However, if the existing electromagnetic theory is revised according to the results of this research, more accurate electromagnetic equations, improved electromagnetic equipment and devices should be achieved. 3.3 On the electromagnetic force and the electromagnetic magnetic force 3.3.1 On the electromagnetic force As shown in the two diagrams in Fig. 12 , under the premise that the external magnetic field is ignored, the electromagnetic force experienced by the current envelope is an expansion force regardless of the current direction of the closed loop. This is because the direction of the current does not cause a change in the form of action of the closed loop. The electromagnetic force per unit length of the current envelope at any point of the current envelope are equal. As shown in the Fig. 13 , under the premise that the external magnetic field is as shown by B, the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope in the closed loop is the same as that of the external magnetic field. In this case, the electromagnetic force experienced by the current envelope of the closed loop is an expansive force, because only in this way, the magnetic induction intensity generated by the current envelope of the closed loop can tend to be smaller and towards zero. This is because that when the current is the same, the larger the area of the closed loop, the smaller the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope. Since the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope of the closed loop is the same as that of the external magnetic field, the decrease in the magnetic induction intensity in the current envelope of the closed loop caused by the current loading is in the direction of resisting the increase in the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope of the closed loop, and this is the only thing that can be done by the current envelope of the closed loop to achieve this direction. As shown in Fig. 14 , under the premise that the external magnetic field is shown by B, the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope of the closed loop is opposite to that of the external magnetic field, when the closed loop is loading a current. In this case, the electromagnetic force experienced by the current envelope is a contractile force. Because only in this way the increment of the magnetic induction intensity generated by the current envelope of the closed loop can tend to be larger, since when the current is the same, the smaller the area of the closed loop, the greater the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope, and then the magnetic induction intensity caused by the external magnetic field in the current envelope of the closed loop is more effectively reduced. Since the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope of the closed loop is opposite to the direction of the external magnetic field, the increase in the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope of the closed loop caused by the current loading of the closed loop is in the direction to reduce the magnetic induction intensity in the current envelope of the current carrying closed loop. In this way, if the area of the whole of the closed loop is continuously reduced, the magnetic induction intensity achieved by the current envelope of the current carrying closed loop will be continuously increased, therefore, the magnetic induction intensity achieved by the external magnetic field in the closed loop current envelope will be continuously reduced. That is, the summed magnetic induction intensity in the current envelope of the closed loop will be continuously reduced, or even zeroed. If the current in the closed loop is greatly increased within this case, the electromagnetic force on the current envelope of the closed loop will change from contraction to expansion. In the structure shown in the Fig. 14 , the condition for the electromagnetic force to change from contraction to expansion is that the magnetic induction intensity generated by the current envelope of the closed loop exceeds the magnetic induction intensity achieved in the current envelope by the external magnetic field. Since the electromagnetic force is generated by the whole of the closed loop and is the internal force of the whole of the closed loop, the electromagnetic force should be self-balanced inside the whole current envelope of the closed loop and does not interact with the external magnetic field. 3.3.2 On the electromagnetic magnetic force The electromagnetic magnetic force is the force between the magnetic field generated by the whole of the closed loop and the external magnetic field or magnetic conductor. The essence of electromagnetic magnetic obeys the rule that the same magnetic poles repel, the opposite magnetic poles attract, and obeys the principle of the shortest magnetic circuit. This tends to increase the magnetic flux and the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope of the closed loop. Because this direction in this case is in line with the principle of lowest energy. The electromagnetic magnetic force is not self-balanced in the whole current envelope of the closed loop and does interact with the external magnetic field. In summary, the direction of the electromagnetic force is to eliminate the magnetic induction intensity in the whole current envelope of the closed loop. Because this direction in this case is in line with the principle of lowest energy. The electromagnetic force should be self-balanced inside the whole of the closed loop and does not interact with the external magnetic field. The direction of the electromagnetic magnetic force is to increase the magnetic flux and the magnetic induction intensity within the whole current envelope of the closed loop. Because this direction in this case is in line with the principle of lowest energy. The electromagnetic magnetic force should not be self-balanced inside the whole of the closed loop and does interact with the external magnetic field. Since the nature of the electromagnetic force and the nature of the electromagnetic magnetic force are totally different, therefore, the electromagnetic force and the electromagnetic magnetic force are different. 3.4 On the new definition of the relationship between force and current In 1948, in the International System of Units (SI), as shown in the left part of Fig. 15 , the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) defined the relationship between force (Newton) and current (Ampere) according to the fundamental laws of traditional electromagnetism. That is, when two conductor sticks in one meter long, set one meter apart and carry one Ampere of current, the force between the two current-carrying conductor sticks is 2x10-7 Newton. However, in 2019, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) changed the definition of Ampere unit back to the value based on a fixed elementary charge. However, based on the results of this study, the relationship between force (Newton) and current (Ampere) can be redefined in the following two ways. First, as shown in Fig. 15 in the right part of Fig. 15 , two circular closed circuits with a diameter of one meter and with a current of 1000A are set one meter apart, and the force between the two closed loops is accurately measured in Newtons, and then the constant K value in Fig. 15 can be determined to define the relationship between force (Newtons) and current (Amperes). Since the value of force Newton and the value of current Ampere have long been determined, they can only be related in equation by adjusting the constant K with experiments. Second, as illustrated in Fig. 16 , make a circular closed loop with a diameter of one meter and make it carry a current of 1000A, then accurately measure how many Newtons of the expansion force per length of closed loop, and determine the value of the constant K. Then, determine the relationship between the force (Newton) and the current (Amperes). And it is also because the value of force Newton and the value of current Ampere have long been determined, they can only be related in equation by adjusting the constant K with experiments. 4 Conclusions With the results obtained in the physical experiments conducted in this research, it is concluded that the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field, and the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge experiences a force in a magnetic field all have physical experiment counterexamples. That is, the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon, none of conductor segment Δl, differential segment dl, current elements Idl, or moving independent charge can achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon. The whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/a change in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop is the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving electromagnetic phenomenon. Here, the closed loop can be a conductor closed loop and can be a closed loop consist of a moving independent charge and displacement currents, and named as general closed loop. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge persons who presented their arguments for and against my research results obtained in this research, since their arguments have greatly deepened my thinking. Author Contributions All work done by Beibiao Jin Funding There is no research grants from any agency, all cost is on my own. Data availability The author declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper. Author Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The author declares that this study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards and guidelines. Consent for publication The author declares that this manuscript does not contain any personal data or sensitive information that requires consent for publication. Competing interests The author declares that he has no competing interests. Clinical trial : not applicable. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org /licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . References Cheng, David K., Field and Wave Electromagnetics, CIP (2019) 284478 Purcell, Edward M. & Morin David J., Electricity and Magnetism, 2013. Collin, Robert E., Field Theory of Guided Waves, 1960. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6713667","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":476766883,"identity":"6806ac54-a745-4489-b0d9-c16419875464","order_by":0,"name":"Beibiao Jin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SL Academy Corporation of Logic Engineering","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Beibiao","middleName":"","lastName":"Jin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-21 07:23:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6713667/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6713667/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85541942,"identity":"bd1a990c-5370-48a6-91cd-254796afeb64","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:03:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9450,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field and the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force. 1. Iron dumbbell rotor, 2. Magnetic field line direction, 3. Aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage, 4. Terminal connectors, 5. Iron stator, 6. Direction of the current.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/4b94dc4cb96522ea2a117a5b.png"},{"id":85542769,"identity":"cd24bb5e-25e9-4a1e-b9f5-aede17fb1ef0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:11:23","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30930,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force. 1. Annular iron core, 2. Solenoid winding, 3. N-pole rotor, 4. S-pole rotor.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/37b134b814349105a354ee45.png"},{"id":85542770,"identity":"be6a9562-1de7-4e96-b892-4ffd93340470","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:11:23","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force. 1. The first conductor, 2. The second conductor, 3. The thick-walled iron tube, 4. The ammeter, 5. The permanent magnet (/horseshoe permanent magnet).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/704b9038b24c14011f0c37c6.png"},{"id":85541730,"identity":"bc939ffa-78d4-4123-8d76-b34069333b80","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":24705,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field. 1. Annular iron core, 2. Solenoid winding, 3. N-pole rotor, 4. S-pole rotor.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/460360172ed768c22f036487.png"},{"id":85541726,"identity":"6405e29a-5597-4335-aaf6-e5a22acdff99","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":8217,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field. 1. The first current-carrying conductor, 2. The second current-carrying conductor, 3. The thick-walled iron tube, 4. The battery which can be controlled up to 19.9 Amperes of current, 5. The permanent magnet (/horseshoe permanent magnet).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/56955c88522cc4525a6466ea.png"},{"id":85542771,"identity":"bde2e8ab-6176-4fb7-bbf1-2dba89438224","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:11:23","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":8288,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Ampère force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force and the Oersted's Law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field. 1. Thick-walled iron tube, 2. Copper conductor, 3. Terminal connectors, 4. The horseshoe magnet (Rectangle magnet).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/e29283977c06828d5834065e.png"},{"id":85541740,"identity":"b3e16e2f-3af4-4b0c-b0be-151742e8d9f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":134352,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to test the validity of the Oersted's Law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field. 1. The first conductor stick, 2. The second conductor stick, 3. Battery controlled up to 19.9 Amperes of current, 4. A thin-walled iron tube, 5. A thick-walled iron tube, 6. The magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, 7. The magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, 8. The magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/4ff0de306adf329effc1ce61.png"},{"id":85541746,"identity":"ab089904-fe16-4ec3-9152-6fde3e4ccad0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123145,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA schematic illustration of physical experiments to examine the validity of the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force. 1. Stator (Annular iron core), 2. High-temperature ceramic insulating tube, 3. N-pole rotor, 4. S-pole rotor, 5. The conductor for electron coming back, 6. Electron gun, 7. The closed loop consisting of the electron current, 8. Electron current.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/3580ee191f2342c316a7a438.png"},{"id":85541742,"identity":"059b0ca1-a7aa-4139-8c1b-a334b3e0410f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":63349,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic diagram of the cone of the physical law illustrating the process of extracting the physical laws. 1. The extracting direction of the physical laws, 2. The first experiment which implies a new physical law exists, 3. The physical law verification experiments, 4. The area where the physical laws fail mostly (the existence possibility of new physical laws is high), 5. The augmented area formed in the process of extracting the physical laws.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/610ebadec97c384485e46465.png"},{"id":85541737,"identity":"292cf8cc-7623-447b-bd95-194bc2fa961b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":139064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic diagram of the double-half verification law for verifying the validity of physical law.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/822d80d514936277a8f957c1.png"},{"id":85541952,"identity":"3d77378b-9171-44ab-afeb-a6f7bdcbe767","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:03:23","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":194265,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic diagram of the verification process of physical laws so far.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/4afa7935db0ca19e8755ed75.png"},{"id":85541945,"identity":"28bc11ed-de2f-42fe-83d4-444a304573ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:03:23","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe whole of the current-carrying closed loop and the electromagnetic force it generates.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/2c86d562f8b8b83bf2e41144.png"},{"id":85541947,"identity":"54580bed-b341-4e74-91fb-2b74097ab372","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:03:23","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50983,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe whole of the current-carrying closed loop, the electromagnetic force it generates, and with the external magnetic field of the same direction.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/447c4fa92bdaae7db6b7b6f7.png"},{"id":85541741,"identity":"6d927f95-3348-427e-86af-0c08b58474fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 06:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48964,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe whole of the current-carrying closed loop, the electromagnetic force it generates, and with the external magnetic field of the opposite direction.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"14.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/da2e3b2ee898ce38e49ef6a3.png"},{"id":85542772,"identity":"4552c625-ba97-48bb-8f3e-996d149a57a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:11:23","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"Figure 15","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":115282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe definition of the relationship between force (Newton) and current (Ampere) with two units.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"15.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/33323b0d2be76c7f911e6c25.png"},{"id":85541950,"identity":"58556e86-0d8b-4449-b5f4-d72319b515bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:03:23","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"Figure 16","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52548,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe definition of the relationship between force (Newton) and current (Ampere) with one unit.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"16.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/e2d3eb04d018e4a10b83131d.png"},{"id":85542906,"identity":"72f257dd-0342-4876-b98b-959b26a4effa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-27 07:19:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2225464,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6713667/v1/4d8e9ce1-f947-49e3-b2a5-f4e25ad0b5d1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Physical experiments demonstrate that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples","fulltext":[{"header":"Article Highlights","content":"\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIt demonstrates that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIt reveals that the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, any part of this minimum physical unit alone is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon, and that all electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIt provides a new basis for developing new theories and equations that more accurately describe the natural world.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIt offers a new approach for creating improved electromagnetic equipment and devices.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSo far, the electrical machinery developed by humans based on the fundamental laws of electromagnetism can be divided into two types: electrical motors and electrical generators. These include various forms, such as DC motors, AC motors, synchronous motors, asynchronous motors, brushed motors, and brushless motors. But all of these electrical machineries share one common feature: the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings changes when they are in working state. This change in magnetic flux is the root cause of decreased efficiency and increased manufacturing and control costs in electrical motors and electrical generators. An in-depth study of the fundamental laws of electromagnetism revealed that based on the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, electrical motors and electrical generators can be designed and fabricated in such a way that there is no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings when they are in working state. This approach would greatly improve the working efficiency of electrical motors and electrical generators, and significantly reduce their manufacturing and control costs. Therefore, six years ago, a development project was initiated to create electrical motors and electrical generators that would not change the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings during operation. Consequently, these electrical motors and electrical generators were designed and fabricated strictly based on the fundamental laws of electromagnetism. Although these electrical motors and electrical generators fully comply with the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, such as the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field and the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, all of them completely failed in physical experiment tests, ultimately resulting in the complete failure of the project. After that, a year and a half of time were spent in optimization of these electrical motors and electrical generators, however they still did not work at all. It is entirely unbelievable that these electrical motors and electrical generators completely failed in the physical experiment tests, however, there must be something wrong with the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, as there is no other plausible explanation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the validity of the Faraday's law [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e] of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, the validity of the Oersted's law [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e] of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the conductor, and the validity of the Lorentz force law [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] which states that a moving independent charge experiences a force in a magnetic field were all tested using physical experiments. It was then discovered that the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force law, the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force, the so-called Oersted's law of electromagnetism, and the so-called Lorentz force law all have counterexamples. That is, it was discovered that the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, all electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. Any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon. A conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, or a moving independent charge cannot achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon. In other words, it was discovered that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field, a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force, a current-carrying conductor itself does not generate a magnetic field and a moving independent charge itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field. These results indicate that the electrical motors and electrical generators designed, fabricated and tested in the project six years ago serve as physical experiment counterexamples to the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, such as the physical experiment counterexamples to the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and to the so-called Faraday's law of motional electromotive force. This is why these electrical motors and electrical generators did not work at all, ultimately resulting in the complete failure of the project six years ago. It reveals a fundamentally different electromagnetic nature of the world, depending on whether the electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by a conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, and a moving independent charge, or by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. This is an extremely important scientific question that should have been addressed earlier; however, it still remains unclear to date. Here, the closed loop can be a conductor closed loop, a closed loop consisting of displacement currents, or a closed loop consisting of the current (beam) of moving independent charge, and it is referred to general closed loop.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, in fact, up to date, humans have never experimentally detected a force on a current-carrying conductor that is alone in a magnetic field, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity), caused by the motion of the current-carrying conductor, within the closed loop consisting of the conductor. Moreover, humans have never experimentally detected a motional electromotive force on a conductor that is alone in a magnetic field and cuts through magnetic field lines, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux, caused by the motion of the conductor, within the closed loop consisting of the conductor. Furthermore, humans have never experimentally detected a magnetic field around an independent current-carrying conductor, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux, caused by the change of current of the closed loop, within the closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor. Additionally, humans have never experimentally detected a force on a moving independent charge that is alone in a magnetic field, without the influence of changes in magnetic flux, caused by the motion of the moving independent charge, within the closed loop consisting of the moving independent charge. Although a moving independent charge appears to be an independent beam, it actually is an inalienable part of a closed electric field loop. In fact, there is no such thing as a fully independent charge beam in the world, any apparent charge beam is merely a segment of a closed electric field loop. Actually, none of these four fundamental laws of electromagnetism described above were concluded with true adherence to physical experiments or derived with rigorous logical reasoning. They are merely four illusions which are widely trusted and commonly used, such as in the Biot-Savart law and in Maxwell's equations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. It is extremely important to rigorously test the validity of these four fundamental laws of electromagnetism, as they form the foundation of electromagnetism, classical physics, and modern physics. In this article, the results obtained through physical experiments are presented.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Physical experiments","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Physical experiments to test the validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the validity of the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.1 Physical experiments with a rotary electrical motor to test the validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the validity of the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the experiments illustrated in Figure 1, an iron dumbbell rotor (with a length of 200mm and a diameter including magnets of 96mm), an iron stator (with a length of 200mm, an inner diameter of 116mm, and an outer diameter of 170mm), and an aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage (with a length of 200mm, an inner diameter of 97mm, and an outer diameter of 116mm) were designed and fabricated. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached N-pole outwardly to one protruding section of the iron dumbbell rotor, and permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached S-pole outwardly to the other protruding section of the same iron dumbbell rotor. As shown in Figure 1, the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage was fixed to the inside of the iron stator, and the iron dumbbell rotor was installed inside the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage rotatably to construct the rotary electrical motor. The rotary electrical motor constructed in this manner fully complies with the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force both are as stated above. However, the structure of the rotary electrical motor ensures that even if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force do hold true and the motor works as the laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of its windings. Since the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force is the interaction force between the external magnetic field and the current-carrying conductor, so it is logical that when the external magnetic field\u0026rsquo;s provider is fixed, the current-carrying conductor will move, and vice versa, when the current-carrying conductor is fixed, the external magnetic field\u0026rsquo;s provider will move, when the current-carrying conductor is carrying current in the external magnetic field. Therefore, if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does holds true, then when a current is applied to the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage as shown in Figure 1, the iron dumbbell rotor should rotate. However, regardless of the amount of current applied (instantaneous maximum current exceeding 500A), the iron dumbbell rotor did not rotate at all. Similarly, if the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does holds true, then when the iron dumbbell rotor is rotated, a voltage and a current should be generated between the middle terminal and the end terminal of the aluminum counter-flowing current-carrying cage of the rotary electrical motor. However, even when the dumbbell rotor was rapidly rotated (instantaneous maximum speed exceeding 120rpm), neither measurable voltage nor measurable current was detected with a 10-volt voltmeter and a 500mA ammeter, respectively. These results imply that the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force were found. These results also indicate that a conductor which is carrying a current itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field, and that a conductor which is cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force. The so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force observed so far is not generated by a current-carrying conductor itself in a magnetic field, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux within (/in magnetic induction intensity) the closed loop. Similarly, the so-called motional electromotive force observed so far is not generated by a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the conductor cutting through magnetic field lines with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. This implies that neither of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field nor the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does hold true. \u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.2 Physical experiments with a counter-rotor electrical motor to test the validity of the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the physical experiment illustrated in Figure 2, an annular iron core which was 105mm in inner diameter, 160mm in outer diameter and 120mm in length was made. A solenoid winding consisting of 14 turns of insulated rectangular copper wire with a cross-sectional area of 3x9 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e was installed on the annular iron core to form the stator. Two rotors, each with a diameter of 80mm and a length of 50mm, were made. Each rotor had a shaft of 20mm in diameter. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached N-pole-outwardly to the side surface of one of the two rotors to form the N-pole rotor and permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached S-pole-outwardly to the side surface of the other rotor to form the S-pole rotor. The N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor were set in line and lubricated between them to form the counter-rotating rotor set. The counter-rotating rotor set were installed inside the stator, and a counter-rotor electrical motor was consequently constructed. This electrical motor fully complies with the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force, as stated above. However, the structure of this electrical motor ensures that even if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force hold true and the motor works as these laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of its windings. As illustrated on the left side of Figure 2, if the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does hold true, then, when the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor are rotated, no matter how they are rotated, as long as they are not rotated in the same direction and at the same speed, the solenoid winding should generate an electromotive force and a current. However, no matter how the rotors were rotated (instantaneous maximum speed exceeding 120rpm), the solenoid winding did not generate any measurable electromotive force or current with a 10-volt voltmeter and a 500mA ammeter, respectively. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force was found again. Furthermore, this physical experiment proves again that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force, that is, it does not generate a motional electromotive force. Therefore, the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force does not hold true. The so-called motional electromotive force observed so far is not generated by a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the conductor cutting through magnetic field lines with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. Therefore, the so-called motional electromotive force of a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines does not truly exist. It is merely an illusion of the induced electromotive force which is generated by a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux within the closed loop. Regardless of how a conductor cuts magnetic field lines, the conductor itself does not generate electromotive force at all.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.3 Physical experiments with a rectangular closed loop to test the validity of the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the experiments shown in Figure 3, a thick-walled iron tube (comprising two half tubes) which was 18mm in inner diameter, 55mm in outer diameter and 80mm in length was made. Next, a rectangular winding with dimensions of 150mm by 200mm was made of 15 turns of insulated copper wire. The core of the copper wire is with a 1.5 mm2 cross-sectional area. The two edges with 150mm length of the rectangular winding were named as the first conductor and the second conductor, respectively. Then, two copper wire ends of the rectangular winding was connected to a 500mA ammeter in series, and a rectangular closed loop was formed. The first conductor of the rectangular closed loop was insulated and installed inside the thick-walled iron tube to make the first conductor to be a conductor segment which is shielded against magnetic field. The rectangular closed loop with the 500mA ammeter and the thick-walled iron tube installed is named as the test set. The external magnetic field is from a horseshoe permanent magnet, as shown in Figure 3. The horseshoe permanent magnet has permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached N-pole outwardly to form the N-pole and permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached S-pole outwardly to form the S-pole. The distance between the N-pole and the S-pole is 90mm, and the effective dimension of each pole is 120mmx400mm. When the test set was placed in the external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity outside and inside the thick-walled iron tube were measured using a Gauss meter (with a measurement range:1Gauss ~2Tesla). The results showed that the magnetic induction intensity outside the thick-walled iron tube at the second conductor was 258 Gauss, the magnetic induction intensity inside the thick-walled iron tube at the first conductor was 3 Gauss. This implies that when the test set is placed in an external magnetic field, as illustrated in Figure 3, the magnetic induction intensity inside the thick-walled iron tube is significantly lower than those in the place occupied by the second conductor, due to the shielding effect against magnetic field of the thick-walled iron tube. Therefore, if the test set is moved in an external magnetic field in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, as illustrated by V directions in Figure 3, then, the second conductor will cut through magnetic field lines much more than the first conductor does. This implies that if the test set is moved within the external magnetic field, as illustrated in Figure 3, and if the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force does hold true, there must be a current in the rectangular closed loop of the test set. However, when the test set was placed in the external magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet and mounted on a lubricated track allowing the test set to move only in two directions (back and forward) perpendicular to the external magnetic field, regardless of the test set was rapidly moved in the external magnetic field in the direction perpendicular to magnetic field as illustrated in Figure 3, no measurable current was detected with the 500mA ammeter installed. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the so-called Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force was found. This indicates that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate an electromotive force. In other words, a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate a motional electromotive force.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, if in the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 3, an electromotive force was generated, then it implies that even there is no change in magnetic flux within a closed loop, there is still a current generated in the closed loop. This definitely contradicts the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetic induction which states that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates an electric current. This Faraday\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetic induction is a law which has been experimentally and logically proved and is fully valid. Therefore, the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force has no way to hold true. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.4 Physical experiments with a counter-rotor electrical motor to test the validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the experiments illustrated in Figure 4, the device shown in Figure 2 was used, since the device shown in Figure 2 does also fully comply with the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field. As illustrated on the left side of Figure 4, if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, then, when the solenoid winding of the electrical motor is loaded with a current, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor should rotate in opposite direction. However, regardless of how the solenoid winding was loaded with current, the rotors did not rotate at all. Even when the solenoid winding was loaded with an instantaneous maximum current exceeding 500A, the rotors still did not rotate at all. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field was found again. This physical experiment proves again that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field. Therefore, the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does not hold true. The so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force observed so far is not generated by a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field itself, but it is generated by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. The so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force does not truly exist. It is merely an illusion of the electromagnetic force which is achieved by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.5 Physical experiments with a rectangular closed loop to test the validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the experiments shown in Figure 5, the device shown in Figure 3 was used, however, the 500mA ammeter installed was replaced with a battery capable of supplying up to 19.9 Amp\u0026egrave;re of current, as illustrated in Figure 5. When the rectangular closed loop is placed in an external magnetic field and is constrained to move only perpendicular to the direction of the external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity inside the thick-walled iron tube must be significantly lower than those in the place occupied by the second conductor, due to the shielding effect against magnetic field of the thick-walled iron tube. Therefore, if the rectangular closed loop is loaded with current in an external magnetic field, as illustrated in Figure 5, and if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, the second conductor will experience a force much bigger than the first conductor does. This implies that if the rectangular closed loop is loaded with current in an external magnetic field, and if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, the rectangular closed loop must move. However, when the rectangular closed loop was placed in the external magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet, and mounted on a lubricated track which allows the rectangular closed loop to move in only two directions (back and forward) perpendicular to the external magnetic field, no measurable movement was observed, regardless of how the rectangular closed loop was loaded with currents. Even if the battery was controlled up to 19.9 Amperes of current (under the voltage of 2.6V), and the rectangular closed loop was with the total current of 298.5A, there was still no measurable movement observed. This physical experiment implies that the physical experiment counterexample to the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field was found. This implies that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field. Therefore, the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does not hold true.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, if in the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 2, an Amp\u0026egrave;re force was generated, then it implies that the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of\u0026nbsp;motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force does hold true. This is because that the process of a current-carrying conductor experiencing a force in a magnetic field and the process of a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generating electromotive force are from the same nature. However, if the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of\u0026nbsp;motional electromotive force\u0026nbsp;which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force does hold true, it implies that even there is no change in magnetic flux within a closed loop, there is still a current generated in the closed loop, as the physical experiments stated in Figure 3. This definitely contradicts the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetic induction\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003ewhich states that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates an electric current. Because this Faraday\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetic induction is a law which has been experimentally and logically proved and is fully valid.\u0026nbsp;Therefore, the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field violates the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetic induction\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003ewhich states that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates an electric current. Therefore, the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field has no way to hold true.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.6 Physical experiments with a magnetically-shielded-through-core coil to test the validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the validity of the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the experiments shown in Figure 6, a copper conductor (with a diameter of 6mm) was insulated and installed inside a thick-walled iron tube (with an inner diameter of 18mm, an outer diameter of 55mm, and a length of 400mm). One end of the copper conductor was electrically connected to the thick-walled iron tube to form a coil to carry current. This coil was termed as a magnetically-shielded-through-core coil. The structure of this magnetically-shielded-through-core coil ensures that even if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force hold true and the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil works as these two laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loop of the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil. The external magnetic field was provided by a horseshoe magnet. The horseshoe magnet had permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached N-pole outwardly to form the N-pole and had permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) attached S-pole outwardly to form the S-pole. The distance between the N-pole and the S-pole was 70mm, and the effective dimension of each pole was 100mmx100mm. When the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil was placed in the external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity outside the coil and the magnetic induction intensity inside the coil were measured using a Gauss meter (with a measurement range: 1Gauss ~2Tesla). The results showed that the magnetic induction intensity outside the coil was 308 Gauss, the magnetic induction intensity inside the coil was 1 Gauss. This indicates that when this coil is placed in an external magnetic field, the magnetic induction intensity of the place occupied by the thick-walled iron tube is significantly higher than those in the place occupied by the copper conductor inside the thick-walled iron tube, due to the shielding effect against magnetic field of the thick-walled iron tube. Because the thick-walled iron tube and the inner copper conductor are connected in series, when this coil is placed in a magnetic field and is powered, if the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does hold true, both the thick-walled iron tube and the inner copper conductor should experience forces in opposite directions. However, the magnitudes of these two forces are different due to the different magnetic induction intensity at the places occupied by the thick-walled iron tube and at the places occupied by the copper conductor inside the thick-walled iron tube. Therefore, the resultant force should not be equal to zero, thus the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil should experience an Amp\u0026egrave;re force in total and should move. However, when the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil was placed in the external magnetic field and mounted on a lubricated track which allows the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil to move only in two directions (back and forward) perpendicular to the magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet, regardless of the amount of the DC current applied (with a maximum current of 50A), the coil remained stationary. Moreover, regardless of how rapidly the coil was moved perpendicular to the magnetic field direction (speeds exceeding 3m/s), neither measurable voltage nor measurable current was detected in the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil, with a 10-volt voltmeter and a 500mA ammeter, respectively. These results imply that the physical experiment counterexamples to the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force law and to the so-called Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force were found again. These results indicate that a current-carrying conductor itself does not experience a force in a magnetic field, a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines itself does not generate electromotive force. In short, these results indicate that a current-carrying conductor itself does not generate a magnetic field, otherwise, the magnetically-shielded-through-core coil must interact with the external magnetic field and must establish the relationship between electric field, magnetic field, as well as electromagnetic force. That is, the physical experiment counterexample to the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductor was also found.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Physical experiments to test the validity of the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7, three rectangle coils were made, each of them measuring 350mm by 200mm and consisting of 30 turns of insulated copper wire, and the core of the wire is with a cross-sectional area of 1.5 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. One of the two 350mm long edges of each rectangle coil was designated as the first conductor stick, and the other edge of the same length was designated as the second conductor stick. The rectangle coils were designated as the current-carrying closed loop 0. When the second conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 0 was insulated and installed inside a thin-walled iron tube (comprising two half tubes) with an inner diameter of 120mm, an outer diameter of 155mm and a length of 115mm, then the current-carrying closed loop 1 was consequently constructed. Similarly, when the second conductor stick of other current-carrying closed loop 0 was insulated and installed inside a thick-walled iron tube (comprising two half tubes) with an inner diameter of 120mm, an outer diameter of 194mm and a length of 115mm, then the current-carrying closed loop 2 was consequently constructed. As illustrated in Figure 7, the distance between the magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e0\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eand the center line of the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 0, the distance between the magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eand the center line of the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 1, and the distance between the magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eand the center line of the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop 2 were all uniformly set to 30mm. In the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7, the current-carrying closed loop 0, the current-carrying closed loop 1 and the current-carrying closed loop 2 were each load with the same current of 593 Amperes (19.9Amperes times 30 turns) using a battery controlled up to 19.9 Amperes of current (under the voltage of 8.2-8.5 V respectively). In the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7, the magnetic induction intensity B\u003csub\u003e0\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eat the magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, the magnetic induction intensity B\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e at the magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e and the magnetic induction intensity B\u003csub\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eat the magnetic induction intensity measure point P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e were measured using a Gauss meter (with a measurement range: 1Gauss ~2Tesla). The results were: B\u003csub\u003e0\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003ewas 9 Gauss, B\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e was 5 Gauss, B\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e was 2 Gauss. This indicates that the magnetic induction intensity at P\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026gt; the magnetic induction intensity at P\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026gt; the magnetic induction intensity at P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. This implies that the magnetic induction intensity of the magnetic field surrounding the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop decreases, as the magnetic conductivity of the iron tube increases, assuming that the current-carrying closed loop 0 has an iron tube with zero thickness. That is, the magnetic induction intensity of the magnetic field surrounding the first conductor stick of the current-carrying closed loop decreases, as the magnetic conductivity of the materials inside the current-carrying closed loop increases. However, if the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the conductor holds true, the magnetic induction intensity at P\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, at P\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e and at P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e must be increasing in this order or at least remains the same, since the offset portion of the magnetic induction intensity of the magnetic field at the measure point by the magnetic field generated by the second conductor stick decreases, as the magnetic conductivity of the iron tube increases. In fact, there is no way for the iron tube to block the magnetic field lines generated by the first conductor stick at the first conductor stick. This is because, logically, nothing can block a stream at its source, as long as the stream exists. Therefore, the results obtained in the physical experiments illustrated in Figure 7 indicate that the circular magnetic field surrounding the first conductor stick is not generated by the first conductor stick, even if it is carrying current. In other words, the first conductor stick itself does not generate a circular magnetic field surrounding itself, even it is carrying current. This implies that a current-carrying conductor itself does not generate a magnetic field, and implies that a current element Idl itself does not generate magnetic field, that is, a conductor segment \u0026Delta;l, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, and a moving independent charge all do not generate magnetic field, spontaneously. In fact, the circular magnetic field surrounding a current-carrying conductor can only be generated by a closed loop consisting of the current-carrying conductor with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. The magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of a current-carrying conductor has to surround the current-carrying conductor to extend to the other side of the closed loop to form a closed magnetic field loop, therefore, it can easily be mistaken for the magnetic field generated by the current-carrying conductor itself. Thus, the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductor does not hold true. These physical experiments imply that the physical experiment counterexample to the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the current-carrying conductor was found. Therefore, the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism does not hold true, and correspondingly, the Biot-Savart law does not hold true either. In addition, a closed loop with a constant current does not generate a magnetic field, it only maintains the existing magnetic field without energy consumption, the electrical energy consumed in this process is caused by the electric resistance, but not by the magnetic field. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Physical experiments to test the validity of the Lorentz force law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the physical experiment illustrated in Figure 8, an annular iron core which was 900 mm in inner diameter, 1140 mm in outer diameter and 810 mm in length was made and was used as the stator. Twenty high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes which was 10 mm in inner diameter, 40 mm in outer diameter and 960 mm in length were installed inside the stator, as illustrated in Figure 8. Two rotors, each with a diameter of 800 mm and a length of 400 mm, were made. Each rotor had a shaft of 80 mm in diameter. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached N-pole-outwardly to the side surface of one of the two rotors to form the N-pole rotor. Permanent magnets (with a magnetic induction intensity of 0.8 Tesla) were attached S-pole-outwardly to the side surface of the other rotor to form the S-pole rotor. The N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor were set in line and lubricated between them to form the counter-rotating rotor set. The counter-rotating rotor set were installed inside the stator, as illustrated in Figure 8. Twenty electron guns, each with a diameter of 80 mm, a length of 600 mm, a working current of 1 A and a working voltage of 30 kV, were mounted to the stator in such a way that one electron gun was corresponded with one high-temperature ceramic insulating tube. The electron current (beam) from each electron guns was directed through one of the high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes, respectively. Each electron gun, its beam and one conductor were connected in series to form a closed loop consisting of the electron current for each electron guns, as illustrated in Figure 8, and an electrical motor was consequently constructed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis electrical motor fully complies with the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force. This electrical motor was intentionally designed as a physical experiment counterexample to the Lorentz force law. That is, under the condition that the requirements of the Lorentz force law are fully satisfied, even if the trajectory of the moving independent charge is forced, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop consisting of the moving independent charge. In other words, as illustrated in Figure 8, if the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force does hold true, then when the electron guns start shooting electrons into the high-temperature ceramic insulating tube, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor should experience the so-called Lorentz force of opposite direction and should rotate in opposite direction. However, regardless of how intensive the electron guns shot electrons into the high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes, neither the N-pole rotor nor the S-pole rotor did rotate. This physical experiment demonstrates that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field itself does not experience a force. Therefore, the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force does not hold true. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, if in this physical experiment, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor did rotate, then the law of conservation of energy is violated. This is because that in this process, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor would produce output power. However, this output power is produced out of nothing, because the kinetic energy of the electrons shot into the high-temperature ceramic insulating tubes would not be reduced by the so-called Lorentz force, but would be released as heat. This indicates that if in this physical experiment, the N-pole rotor and the S-pole rotor did rotate, then this physical experiment violates the law of conservation of energy, that is, the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force violates the law of conservation of energy. The so-called Lorentz force observed so far is not generated by a moving independent charge in a magnetic field itself, but it is generated by the whole of a general closed loop consisting of the electron current (beam) of the moving independent charge and displacement currents, with a change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThat is, the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve electromagnetic force acting on moving independent charges in a magnetic field, any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic force acting on moving independent charges in a magnetic field. These displacement currents are among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at. And this general closed loop is a closed loop of electric field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experiments shown in Figure 8 demonstrates that there is a counterexample to the Lorentz force law, that is, the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge in a magnetic field experiences a force does not hold true.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe common feature of all the physics experiments conducted above in this article is that they fully comply with the relevant fundamental laws of electromagnetism, but even if the relevant fundamental laws of electromagnetism do hold true and the device utilized in the experiments work as the physical laws state, there is still no change in magnetic flux within the closed loops contained in the experiments. However, it is found that if there is no change in magnetic flux within a closed loop, no electromagnetic phenomena can be achieved. Therefore, a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within a closed loop is the indispensable necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving electromagnetic phenomena, such as the Amp\u0026egrave;re force, the Faraday motional electromotive force, the Oersted magnetic field and the Lorentz force.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 On why can a physical law that has been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period still have counterexamples and be disproved?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is one of the most critical questions in the field of science and technology, and therefore the logic of physical law verification needs to be clarified. Here, the physical law refers to all scientific laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.1 Physical laws cannot be verified solely through physical experiments\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor a physical law, to be true or not to be true is a critical question. Physical law must be extracted upwards and over the relevant specific physical experiments to describe necessities of the natural world, which is behind the relevant specific physical experiments. What physical law describes is the necessity that it is known how it works, but it is unknown why it so works, however what theorem describes is the necessity that it is known how it works, and it is also known why it so works. Therefore, the inductive method is suitable for constructing physical laws, but the deductive method is appropriate for formulating theorems. When a physical law is extracted using the inductive method, the scope governed by the physical law will be much expanded to include areas where the physical law has not been and cannot be verified by physical experiments. This is because there are infinitely many cases in these areas that would need to be verified by physical experiments, yet both the amount and methods of physical experiments that can be conducted are limited. Therefore, physical laws cannot be verified solely through physical experiments. However, since physical laws must be true in accordance with the objective reality, they must be proved true through physical experiments (encompassing all scientific experiments). In addition, physical laws must also be true in all possible situations, thus, physical laws must be also verified through logic experiments. This is because that physical experiments cannot deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in all possible situations, whereas logic experiments can address this issue, since the working methodology for logic experiments is to intentionally seek counterexamples only, rather than verifying a physical law one experiment by one experiment. In other word, physical experiments do not have the ability to thoroughly pickup all counterexamples of a physical law, but logic experiments do have this ability. Therefore, physical laws must be verified through the combination of physical experiment verification process and logic experiment verification process. That is, a physical law must be verified by both physical experiments and logic experiments before it can be considered being a genuine physical law. However, almost all of the physical laws established so far have only been verified through physical experiments, but not verified through logic experiments. Therefore, it is not surprising that some physical laws and even some fundamental physical laws have counterexamples, even these physical laws having been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period. Logically, no matter how many physical experiments prove a physical law true, as long as there is one physical experiment counterexample or one logic experiment counterexample found, this physical law does not hold true definitely. These are the reasons why a physical law that has been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period can still have counterexamples and can be founded invalid. In other words, there are two reasons why a physical law that has been proved true by numerous physical experiments over a long period can still be invalid. The first reason is that almost all of the physical laws established so far have only been verified through physical experiments, but not have been verified through logic experiments. The second reason is that there is an inevitability determined by the logic defects of the inductive method. That is, when extracting physical law by the inductive method from the specific physical experiments conducted, the scope governed by the physical law will be much expanded and will cover an area where the physical law has not been verified and cannot be verified by physical experiments, and this area is here termed as the augmented area. That is, there will be a territory that is governed by the relevant physical law, but has not been physical-experimentally verified and cannot be physical-experimentally verified. That is, when a physical law is established by inductive method based on the results of physical experiments, such as observations, measurements, and other material processes, then as illustrated in the cone of the physical laws in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, what the physical law states produces an additional area, that is the augmented area, in which there are places where the relevant physical law has not been and cannot be verified by physical experiments. This is because that in this area there are infinite cases including some unknown kinds of cases need to be verified by physical experiments, but the amount and method of physical experiments which can be conducted are both limited. Therefore, physical law cannot be verified solely through physical experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eActually, the fact that physical laws cannot be verified solely through physical experiments leads to the following conclusions:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA physical law cannot be proved true by physical experiments from which this physical law extracted.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA physical law cannot be proved true by physical experiments designed right in the scope governed by this physical law, even if the results of these physical experiments comply with what this physical law states.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA physical law cannot be proved true by any physical experiments, even if the results of these physical experiments comply with what this physical law states.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA fake physical law can also be seemingly proved true by physical experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical experiment is only the necessary condition required to prove physical law true, but not the sufficient condition required to prove physical law true, even if a physical law is proved true by each and every physical experiments conducted, the physical law may still be false.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA case proving a physical law true cannot invalidate a case that disproves this physical law. However, a case disproving a physical law definitely invalidates a case that proves this physical law true, and then this physical law does not hold true at all.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIf Person A asserts that he has disproved physical law Y using process X, while Person B asserts that the physical law Y is true, because various processes have all proved the physical law Y true. Then actually, Person B is completely and logically mistaken. Since the only way to refute Person A is to demonstrate that the process X used by Person A is flawed, and any other attempts to prove Person A wrong are logically incoherent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA physical law must be proved true in both physical experiment verification and logic experiment verification before becoming a real physical law.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt is a logic mistake that if the results of repeated physical experiments comply with what a physical law states, then the physical law is consequently concluded to be true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA physical law that has been proven to be correct by a large number of physical experiments may still be found to have counterexamples, and it may still not be true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA physical law that drives great strides in human civilization may still be found to have counterexamples, and it may still not be true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese conclusions should help people to get better understanding of the logic of physical law verification and to get better understanding of the relations between physical law and physical experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.2 The double-half verification law for physical law verification\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs stated above, since physical laws must be true in contrast with objective reality, physical law must be proved true in physical experiments. In addition, physical law must be proved true in all possible situations before becoming a real physical law. The requirement that physical laws must be proved true in all possible situations before becoming a real physical law implies that it needs an infinite number of different physical experiments including all possible sorts of physical experiments to verify a physical law. Since it is impossible to conduct an infinite number of different physical experiments, not only that, but it is also impossible to complete even a finite number of different physical experiments due to the limited conditions and other reasons, for example, due to the time and cost reasons. Therefore, physical experiments cannot deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in all possible situations, or deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in the situations of vast array of different physical experiments. Therefore, it is impossible to truly prove physical laws solely through physical experiments, but logic process (i.e. logic experiment) can deal with the problem of verifying the physical laws in all possible situations, as the logic experiments do not require examining each case individually within the scope governed by the physical law. Therefore, the verification of physical law can only be achieved through the combination of physical experiment verification process and logic experiment verification process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical laws do not interpretate the entirety of related physical experiments, instead, they are the upward conclusion, abstract conclusion, and inductive conclusion derived from those experiments. Because upward-raised, abstracted, and inductively-concluded, physical laws extend far beyond the scope where the original physical experiments can go through with and verify, physical law cannot be proved true by the physical experiments which these physical laws extracted from. Specifically, this is because that physical law states more general things than the physical experiments which it is extracted from can do, and governs more universal processes than the physical experiments which it is extracted from can do, and reveals more profound logic relations than the physical experiments which it is extracted from can do, and finally contains the cases that do not exist in the scope of the physical experiments which it is extracted from. That is, physical law goes far beyond the scope where the physical experiments which it is extracted from can reach.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgain, because upward-raised, abstracted, and inductively-concluded, physical law also cannot be proved true by the physical experiments which are designed right in the scope governed by the same physical law, even if the results of these physical experiments match what the physical law states. This is because that these physical experiments are only one or several different physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law, where there are infinite different physical experiments exist. This means that it is entirely possible that there are physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical laws that fully meet the requirements of the relevant physical law, but whose results are contrary to the results of all existing physical experiments which prove the physical law true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical law still cannot be verified by any other physical experiments, even if the results of these physical experiments are consistent with those this physical law states, because any other physical experiments which can be conducted are still only one or several different physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law, where there are infinite different physical experiments exist. And the same, this means that it is entirely possible that there are physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law, that fully comply with the requirements of the relevant physical law, but whose results are contrary to the results of all existing physical experiments. These statements mean that it is entirely possible that there are physical experiments in the scope governed by the relevant physical law that fully meet the requirements of the relevant physical law, but whose results are contrary to the results of all existing physical experiments which prove the physical law true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical law is not an interpretation of a certain physical experiment, nor an interpretation of a certain type of physical experiments, but only an interpretation of a certain natural necessity. In essence, once a physical law is established, it is no longer directly related to any specific physical experiment, including the physical experiments which the physical law is extracted from and the physical experiments which are designed right in the scope governed by the physical law.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll in all, physical law is general, universal and absolute, that is, physical law manifests itself wherever, whenever and whatever, so it is beyond the reach of any physical experiment, therefore, physical law cannot be proved true solely through physical experiments. And the issue that physical law cannot be proved true solely through physical experiments logically implies that a fake physical law can also be proved true by physical experiments. So, if it is wanted to verify a physical law in all possible physical experiments within the physical law\u0026rsquo;s scope, the only way is to use the process verification of logic experiments, because logic experiment verification is the only process that can deal with verification in all possible situations, as logic experiment verification only searches for counterexamples and does not examine the validity case by case over the scope governed by the physical law. However, most people believe that physical experiments are the way to verify physical law, but in fact this is a logic mistake. In other words, it is a logic mistake that if as long as the results of physical experiments are consistent with what a physical law states, then it is concluded that the physical law is proved true. Why many physical laws are falsified after a long period of domination of mankind? The fundamental reason for this is here. The fundamental reason for this is that the relevant physical laws are only verified by physical experiment verification but not by logic experiment verification which is also an indispensable process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn other words, since physical experiment cannot deal with the problem of verifying a physical law in all possible situations, but logic experiment can deal with this issue. Therefore, physical law must be verified by the combination of physical experiment and logic experiment, that is, physical law must be verified by physical experiment and must be verified by logic experiment before it becomes a real physical law. Therefore, no matter how large number of physical experiments prove a physical law true, as long as there is one physical experiment counterexample or one logic experiment counterexample found, this physical law does not hold true definitely. Similarly, no matter how large number of logic experiments prove a physical law true, as long as there is one physical experiment counterexample or one logic experiment counterexample found, this physical law does not hold true definitely.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat stated above indicate that the logic defect of the inductive method makes the combination of physical experiment verification and logic experiment verification to become to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the verification of physical law, and the physical experiment verification is only the necessary condition, but not the sufficient condition for the verification of physical law. In other words, physical experiments only possess the necessity in verifying physical law, but do not possess the sufficiency in verifying it, physical experiments only possess the sufficiency in falsifying physical law, but do not possess the necessity in falsifying physical law, because the physical experiments are only the half way of verifying physical law. Because there are two half ways of verifying physical law, if a physical law is false in any half way, it must be false, and if a physical law is true in this half way, it is not certainly true. That is, no matter how large the amount of physical experiment verifications is, which prove a physical law true, it still cannot verify the physical law solely through physical experiments, but as long as there is one physical experiment verification that falsifies a certain physical law, then this physical law must be false and disappear. In the same way, no matter how big the number of logic experiment verifications is, which prove a physical law true, it still cannot verify the validity of the physical law solely through physical experiments, but as long as there is one logic experiment verification that falsifies a certain physical law, then this physical law must be false and disappear. As illustrated in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, in the process of verifying physical law, the physical experiment verification is only the half way of the process, and the logic experiment verification is only the other half way of the process, a physical law must be verified in both of physical experiment verification process and logic experiment verification process, any of these half verification process are indispensable, and if a physical law is falsified in any of these two verification processes, then this physical law does not hold true. This statement is here termed as the double-half verification law for verifying physical law, and shorted as the double-half verification law.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOf course, even if a physical law is verified by both of physical experiment verification and logic experiment verification, then this physical law will become to be a current-effective physical law, but not a physical law forever. As stated above, physical law manifests itself wherever, whenever and whatever, however, wherever, whenever and whatever, and is only effective before it is disproved. With the time going, there is still a risk for the physical law verified by the double-half verification law to be disproved. However, this does not imply that physical law can be verified only through physical experiments, because the physical law that is verified by the double-half verification law is far more profound and far more stable than the physical law that is verified solely through physical experiments. Therefore, the physical law that is verified by the double-half verification law is far more essential and stable than the physical law that is verified solely through physical experiments. From Ptolemy\u0026apos;s geocentric theory to Copernicus\u0026apos;s heliocentric model, from Aristotle\u0026apos;s theory of free fall to Galileo\u0026apos;s law of free fall, and from Newton\u0026apos;s laws of motion to Einstein\u0026apos;s special theory of relativity (in fact, it can be considered that Einstein disproved Newton\u0026apos;s laws of motion), each represents disruptive advancements in natural science, however, at their core, these advancements demonstrate that the double-half verification law is the key for physical law verification.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.3 The general content of logic experiments\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe above stated logic experiment verification is to use people\u0026apos;s philosophical ability and logic ability to challenge and judge the validity of physical law. The falsification by logic processes is to challenge and judge the validity of a physical law, and if a physical law cannot be falsified, then it is determined that the physical law is verified in the logic experiment verification process. That is, the falsification by logic processes is used to replace the verification by logic processes. The falsification by logic processes usually includes: the falsification by counterexample of physical experiment, the falsification by logic combing, the falsification by thought experiment, the falsification by existing laws (e.g., the falsification process by the law of causality and the falsification by the law of conservation of energy, etc.), the falsification by the law of inheritance of symmetry, the falsification by the indispensability of the necessary and sufficient conditions, the falsification by the must-manifesting law of physical law, and the falsification by the existence of the interaction relations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by counterexample of physical experiment: Use logic processes to design as many as possible physical experiments which fully match the requirements of the relevant physical law, but they are logically different from the physical experiments which have proved the relevant physical law true, and then conduct all the physical experiments. If the result of any of these physical experiments is inconsistent with the result stated by the relevant physical law, then that physical experiment is the counterexample of physical experiment of the relevant physical law, then the relevant physical law is falsified by the counterexample of physical experiment, that is, the physical law is disproved.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by logic combing: Make rigorous logic examinations of the extracting process (law construction process) of the relevant physical law to determine whether there are logic defects in this process, and if any logic defect is found in this process, then the physical law is falsified by logic combing, and that is, the physical law is disproved.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by thought experiment: Use imaginations to design as many as possible physical experiments that are difficult or impossible to be implemented in reality, but fully conformed to the requirements of the relevant physical law. Then use logic examinations to determine the results of the physical experiments. If the result of any of the thought experiment does not match the result stated by the relevant physical law, then the relevant physical law is falsified by thought experiment, that is, the relevant physical law is disproved.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by existing laws: Use existing physical laws to examine the validity of relevant physical law. For example, to falsify a physical law by the law of causality and by the law of conservation of energy, etc. If the relevant physical law is contrary to the existing physical law, then at least one of these two physical laws is false, and if the existing physical law is found to be true, then the relevant physical law is falsified by the existing law, that is, the physical law is disproved. Because the physical laws of nature are interrelated systems, no physical law can contradict any other physical laws. When using existing physical laws to examine the validity of relevant physical law, existing fundamental physical laws such as the law of causality, the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter are usually used, because these fundamental physical laws are simple and stable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by the law of inheritance of symmetry: Examine whether the symmetry of cause and the symmetry of result, which the relevant physical law states, are consistent with each other or not. If the symmetry of cause and the symmetry of result, which the relevant physical law states, are not consistent with each other, then the relevant physical law is falsified by the law of inheritance of symmetry, that is, the relevant physical law is disproved. This is because the symmetry of cause and the symmetry of result must be consistent with each other, otherwise, it will violate logics. This is because that symmetrical causes can only lead to symmetrical results, but not asymmetrical results, asymmetrical causes can only lead to asymmetrical results, but not symmetrical results, symmetrical results can only arise from symmetrical causes, but not from asymmetrical causes, and asymmetrical results can only arise from asymmetrical causes, but not from symmetrical causes. This is defined as the law of inheritance of symmetry. The law of inheritance of symmetry is an irresistible law that explains the universal rules that nature has. For example, if a physical law states that magnetic field is generated by an isotropic ball, then this physical must be invalid. This is because that magnetic field has direction, but the isotropic ball does not.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by the indispensability of the necessary and sufficient conditions: Examine whether the relevant physical law states the necessary and sufficient conditions for the physical experiment which the relevant physical law is extracted from, and if the relevant physical law does not state the necessary and sufficient conditions for the physical experiment which the relevant physical law is extracted from, then the relevant physical law is indispensably falsified by the indispensability of the necessary and sufficient conditions, that is, the relevant physical law is disproved. The physical law must state the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to manifest itself, and this sufficient and necessary conditions are the minimum requirement for the relevant physical law to manifest itself, and the necessary and sufficient conditions are indispensable therein. If a physical law does not state the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to manifest itself, then the physical law must be upward raised too much, which in turn will lead to the scope governed by this physical law expanded too much, and eventually lead to the invalidity of the physical law.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by the must-manifesting law of physical law: Examine whether a physical law does manifest itself or not under the condition that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the manifestation of the physical law are fulfilled, and if the physical law does not manifest itself, then the physical law is falsified by the must-manifesting law of physical law, that is, this physical law is disproved. For example, if a process belongs to the process which the physical law X states, then the physical law X must manifest itself in this process, which is a necessity determined by the nature of physical law. Because if this physical law does not manifest itself in this process, it means that the physical law is resistible, and the resistible physical law means that it is not true physical law. This is defined here as the must-manifesting law of physical law. For example, in any form of energy conversion process, the law of conservation of energy cannot be unmanifested, and in the measurement of the quantity of any form of matter, the law of conservation of matter cannot be unmanifested. If a physical law should manifest itself, but it does not manifest itself, then this physical law does certainly not hold true. And if in a physical experiment, a physical law should manifest itself, but it does not manifest itself, then, this physical experiment is in essence the counterexample of physical experiment of the physical law. And the claimed manifestation processes of this physical laws are nothing more than the illusion of the fact that is achieved by other physical law which does hold true. For example, in a motor, the magnetic induction intensity in the slot (the grooves) is almost zero, but the wire in the slot is the fundamental current-carrying conductor. This means that the Amp\u0026egrave;re force generated by the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field should be almost zero, so the motor cannot work, but in fact the motor does work. This shows that in the motor, the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field does not manifest. This essentially proves that there is a counterexample to the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, and the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law does not hold true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe so-called falsification by the existence of the interaction relations: Examine whether the interaction relation for the results stated by a physical law exists or not, and if the interaction relation for the results stated by a physical law does not exist, then the physical law is falsified by the falsification by the existence of the interaction relations, that is, the physical law is disproved. For example, if a physical law claims that Y moving in the direction perpendicular to the physical field X produces Z by the interaction of the physical field X, this physical law is obviously untenable. This is because that it is as absurd as saying that an object moving in the direction of the contour of the Earth\u0026apos;s gravitational field does work on the gravitational field or gains energy from the gravitational field. This is also because that it is impossible for a physical field to act in its vertical direction (i.e., in the vertical direction of the field line of physical field), which is here defined as the law of no interaction on vertical direction of physical field.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere should be more logic experiments which can be used to examine the validity of physical laws, however, the logic experiments stated above are simple and easy to use.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere are many physical laws in the fields of whole nature science, however, as shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, a big portion of the physical laws established so far are only verified by physical experiments, but not verified by logic experiments. In the process of establishing the physical laws so far, humans have basically only emphasized the half verification that is physical experiment verification, and have ignored the other half verification that is the logic experiment verification. As a result, a big portion of the physical laws have been recognized as the real physical laws up to now without the undergoing of logic experiment verification process, so it is important to re-verify the existing physical laws which have not been verified by logic experiment verification process, and then some new physical laws may be discovered. Therefore, it is not strange things that some physical laws and even some fundamental physical laws are disproved. These are the answers why a physical law that has been proved true by massive cases of physical experiments for a long time can still be disproved. And in essence, this is because that there is an inevitability determined by the logic defects of the inductive method. This implies that if re-verify the physical laws established so far with the logic experiment verification, that is, with the double-half verification law proposed above, some new laws may be discovered.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegarding the counterexamples to the fundamental laws of electromagnetism discovered in this research, the reason why the Amp\u0026egrave;re\u0026apos;s force law, the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force, the Oersted\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetism, and the Lorentz\u0026apos;s force law do not hold true is not due to that the phenomena observed in their experiments are wrong, but is because that the electromagnetic scientist of that time mistakenly attributed the relevant electromagnetic phenomena achievable only by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop to the electromagnetic phenomena that are achieved by parts of the closed loop. That is, they mistakenly made a conclusion that the relevant electromagnetic phenomena are achieved by a conductor segment \u0026Delta;l, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, and by the current beam of a moving independent charge.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2 On the working process of electromagnetic equipment and devices built by humans so far\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor example, in existing electrical generators, the winding wires are concentrated in the grooves of the generator, but the magnetic induction intensity in the grooves is almost zero. According to the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force, the existing generators should not work. However, the existing electrical generators are designed in such a way that the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their winding changes during operation. This complies with the requirement of the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of electromagnetic induction which states that a change in magnetic flux within closed loop generates electricity. This is why the existing electrical generator functions. This implies that the existing electrical generators do not comply with the Faraday\u0026apos;s law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates electromotive force, that does not hold true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor example, in existing electrical motors, their winding wires are also concentrated in the grooves of the motors, but the magnetic induction intensity in the grooves is almost zero. According to the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the existing motors should not work. However, existing electrical motors are designed to change the magnetic flux within the closed loop of their windings when they are working. Thus, the fact that a change in magnetic flux within a closed loop generates electromagnetic force is inadvertently utilized in existing electrical motors. This is why existing electrical motors can work. This implies that existing electrical motors do not comply with the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, that does not hold true.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor example, in existing fast current transformers, they appear to measure the circular magnetic field generated by the beam itself, but they are actually measuring the magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of the beam. Since the magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of the beam has to surround the beam to extend to the other side of the closed loop to form a closed magnetic field loop. Therefore, it is easy to mistake this for a magnetic field generated by the beam itself. If it is assumed that a beam is merely a segment not part of a closed loop and generates a circular magnetic field surrounding itself, then, the probability for the beam to generate a circular magnetic field under the right-hand rule is exactly the same as the probability for it to generate a circular magnetic field under the left-hand rule. This is because the clockwise direction and counterclockwise direction are perfectly symmetrical for the beam. So, there is no way for the beam itself to generate any magnetic field. Therefore, the beam itself cannot generate any magnetic field, and the so-called Oersted\u0026apos;s circular magnetic field surrounding the beam does not actually exist. It is nothing more than an illusion of the magnetic field generated by the closed loop consisting of the beam, which has to surround the beam to extend to the other side of the closed loop to form a closed magnetic field loop. The current (beam) of the moving particle and the displacement currents among the point the particle starts moving from, the route the particle moves along and the point the particle ends up the moving at are connected in series within the closed loop. Thus, there are general closed loops consisting of the beam and the displacement currents within existing fast current transformers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor example, in existing mass spectrometers, the trajectory of a moving single particle appears to be curved by the so-called Lorentz force generated by the moving single particle itself, but in reality, it is curved by the electromagnetic force generated by a general closed loop consisting of the moving single particle with a change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop. The curving of the trajectory of the moving single particle in the magnetic field causes this change in magnetic flux within the general closed loop. When moving at the same speed in the same magnetic field, the electromagnetic force generated by the general closed loop consisting of the current beam of the moving particles will create different trajectories based on the different mass-to-charge ratios of the particles, thereby forming the mass spectrum. A charge moving appears as a beam and a current segment, but in reality, it forms a closed loop consisting of the current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at. This general closed loop constitutes a closed electric field loop. The current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents, among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at, are connected in series within the closed loop.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor example, in existing cyclotrons, the so-called Lorentz force curves the trajectory of the moving charge while the acceleration electric field accelerates the moving charge. This sequence is repeated cyclically. However, the electromagnetic force that curves the trajectory of the moving charge is not generated by the movement of the moving independent charge in a magnetic field itself. Instead, it is generated by the closed loop consisting of the current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at. Within existing cyclotrons, the closed loop which allows them to work is not only consisting of the current (beam) of the moving charge and the displacement currents among the point the charge starts moving from, the route the charge travels along and the point the charge ends up the moving at, but also is consisting of the acceleration electric field.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElectromagnetism is currently constructed based on the assumption that electromagnetic phenomena, such as the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force, the so-called Faraday\u0026apos;s motional electromotive force, the so-called Oersted\u0026apos;s circular magnetic field, and the so-called Lorentz force, are achieved by a conductor segment \u0026Delta;l itself, a differential conductor segment dl itself, a current element Idl itself, a current beam of the moving independent charge itself, and by the displacement current itself. However, electromagnetic phenomena can only be achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. Anything smaller than the whole of a closed loop, such as conductor segment \u0026Delta;l, differential conductor segment dl, current element Idl and current beam of the moving independent charge, cannot achieve electromagnetic phenomenon at all. Actually, if any element which is smaller than the whole of a closed loop achieves any electromagnetic phenomenon, then the law of conservation of energy is violated, and if a closed loop (or general closed loop) achieves any electromagnetic phenomenon without a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop, then the law of conservation of energy is violated, too. The only thing that can achieve electromagnetic phenomena is a closed loop (or general closed loop) with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. The existing electromagnetic theory, the electromagnetic equipment and devices designed according to the existing electromagnetic theory can still be used. However, if the existing electromagnetic theory is revised according to the results of this research, more accurate electromagnetic equations, improved electromagnetic equipment and devices should be achieved.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 On the electromagnetic force and the electromagnetic magnetic force\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 On the electromagnetic force\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs shown in the two diagrams in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, under the premise that the external magnetic field is ignored, the electromagnetic force experienced by the current envelope is an expansion force regardless of the current direction of the closed loop. This is because the direction of the current does not cause a change in the form of action of the closed loop. The electromagnetic force per unit length of the current envelope at any point of the current envelope are equal.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs shown in the Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, under the premise that the external magnetic field is as shown by B, the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope in the closed loop is the same as that of the external magnetic field. In this case, the electromagnetic force experienced by the current envelope of the closed loop is an expansive force, because only in this way, the magnetic induction intensity generated by the current envelope of the closed loop can tend to be smaller and towards zero. This is because that when the current is the same, the larger the area of the closed loop, the smaller the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope. Since the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope of the closed loop is the same as that of the external magnetic field, the decrease in the magnetic induction intensity in the current envelope of the closed loop caused by the current loading is in the direction of resisting the increase in the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope of the closed loop, and this is the only thing that can be done by the current envelope of the closed loop to achieve this direction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, under the premise that the external magnetic field is shown by B, the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope of the closed loop is opposite to that of the external magnetic field, when the closed loop is loading a current. In this case, the electromagnetic force experienced by the current envelope is a contractile force. Because only in this way the increment of the magnetic induction intensity generated by the current envelope of the closed loop can tend to be larger, since when the current is the same, the smaller the area of the closed loop, the greater the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope, and then the magnetic induction intensity caused by the external magnetic field in the current envelope of the closed loop is more effectively reduced. Since the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current envelope of the closed loop is opposite to the direction of the external magnetic field, the increase in the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope of the closed loop caused by the current loading of the closed loop is in the direction to reduce the magnetic induction intensity in the current envelope of the current carrying closed loop. In this way, if the area of the whole of the closed loop is continuously reduced, the magnetic induction intensity achieved by the current envelope of the current carrying closed loop will be continuously increased, therefore, the magnetic induction intensity achieved by the external magnetic field in the closed loop current envelope will be continuously reduced. That is, the summed magnetic induction intensity in the current envelope of the closed loop will be continuously reduced, or even zeroed. If the current in the closed loop is greatly increased within this case, the electromagnetic force on the current envelope of the closed loop will change from contraction to expansion. In the structure shown in the Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, the condition for the electromagnetic force to change from contraction to expansion is that the magnetic induction intensity generated by the current envelope of the closed loop exceeds the magnetic induction intensity achieved in the current envelope by the external magnetic field.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSince the electromagnetic force is generated by the whole of the closed loop and is the internal force of the whole of the closed loop, the electromagnetic force should be self-balanced inside the whole current envelope of the closed loop and does not interact with the external magnetic field.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3.2 On the electromagnetic magnetic force\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe electromagnetic magnetic force is the force between the magnetic field generated by the whole of the closed loop and the external magnetic field or magnetic conductor. The essence of electromagnetic magnetic obeys the rule that the same magnetic poles repel, the opposite magnetic poles attract, and obeys the principle of the shortest magnetic circuit. This tends to increase the magnetic flux and the magnetic induction intensity within the current envelope of the closed loop. Because this direction in this case is in line with the principle of lowest energy. The electromagnetic magnetic force is not self-balanced in the whole current envelope of the closed loop and does interact with the external magnetic field.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the direction of the electromagnetic force is to eliminate the magnetic induction intensity in the whole current envelope of the closed loop. Because this direction in this case is in line with the principle of lowest energy. The electromagnetic force should be self-balanced inside the whole of the closed loop and does not interact with the external magnetic field. The direction of the electromagnetic magnetic force is to increase the magnetic flux and the magnetic induction intensity within the whole current envelope of the closed loop. Because this direction in this case is in line with the principle of lowest energy. The electromagnetic magnetic force should not be self-balanced inside the whole of the closed loop and does interact with the external magnetic field. Since the nature of the electromagnetic force and the nature of the electromagnetic magnetic force are totally different, therefore, the electromagnetic force and the electromagnetic magnetic force are different.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4 On the new definition of the relationship between force and current\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn 1948, in the International System of Units (SI), as shown in the left part of Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) defined the relationship between force (Newton) and current (Ampere) according to the fundamental laws of traditional electromagnetism. That is, when two conductor sticks in one meter long, set one meter apart and carry one Ampere of current, the force between the two current-carrying conductor sticks is 2x10-7 Newton. However, in 2019, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) changed the definition of Ampere unit back to the value based on a fixed elementary charge. However, based on the results of this study, the relationship between force (Newton) and current (Ampere) can be redefined in the following two ways.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirst, as shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e in the right part of Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, two circular closed circuits with a diameter of one meter and with a current of 1000A are set one meter apart, and the force between the two closed loops is accurately measured in Newtons, and then the constant K value in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e can be determined to define the relationship between force (Newtons) and current (Amperes). Since the value of force Newton and the value of current Ampere have long been determined, they can only be related in equation by adjusting the constant K with experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecond, as illustrated in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, make a circular closed loop with a diameter of one meter and make it carry a current of 1000A, then accurately measure how many Newtons of the expansion force per length of closed loop, and determine the value of the constant K. Then, determine the relationship between the force (Newton) and the current (Amperes). And it is also because the value of force Newton and the value of current Ampere have long been determined, they can only be related in equation by adjusting the constant K with experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWith the results obtained in the physical experiments conducted in this research, it is concluded that the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field, and the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge experiences a force in a magnetic field all have physical experiment counterexamples. That is, the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon, none of conductor segment Δl, differential segment dl, current elements Idl, or moving independent charge can achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon. The whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/a change in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop is the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving electromagnetic phenomenon. Here, the closed loop can be a conductor closed loop and can be a closed loop consist of a moving independent charge and displacement currents, and named as general closed loop.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge persons who presented their arguments for and against my research results obtained in this research, since their arguments have greatly deepened my thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e All work done by Beibiao Jin\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e There is no research grants from any agency, all cost is on my own.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e The author declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe author declares that this study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards and guidelines. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e The author declares that this manuscript does not contain any personal data or sensitive information that requires consent for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe author\u0026nbsp;declares that he has no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial\u003c/strong\u003e: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpen Access\u003c/strong\u003e This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article\u0026apos;s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article\u0026apos;s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit \u003cu\u003ehttp://creativecommons.org /licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/\u003c/u\u003e. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng, David K., Field and Wave Electromagnetics, CIP (2019) 284478\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePurcell, Edward M. \u0026amp; Morin David J., Electricity and Magnetism, 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollin, Robert E., Field Theory of Guided Waves, 1960.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Physical experiments, Fundamental laws of electromagnetism, Physical experiment counterexamples, The whole of a closed loop, The minimum physical unit required to achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon, The logic of physical law verification","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6713667/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6713667/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe validity of the Amp\u0026egrave;re force law which states that a current-carrying conductor experiences a force in a magnetic field, the validity of the Faraday's law of motional electromotive force which states that a conductor cutting through magnetic field lines generates an electromotive force, the validity of the Oersted's law of electromagnetism which states that a current-carrying conductor generates a circular magnetic field surrounding the conductor, and the validity of the Lorentz force law which states that a moving independent charge experiences a force in a magnetic field were all tested using physical experiments. It was discovered that all these four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have physical experiment counterexamples and none of them hold true. That is, the whole of a closed loop is the minimum physical unit required to achieve an electromagnetic phenomenon, any part of this minimum physical unit is incapable of achieving any electromagnetic phenomenon, that is, a conductor segment Δl, a differential conductor segment dl, a current element Idl, or a moving independent charge (/charge beam) cannot achieve any electromagnetic phenomenon. The electromagnetic phenomena, such as the so-called Amp\u0026egrave;re force, the so-called motional electromotive force, the so-called Oersted's magnetic field and the so-called Lorentz force, are all achieved by the whole of a closed loop with a change in magnetic flux (/in magnetic induction intensity) within the closed loop. For the so-called Lorentz force, the closed loop is consisting of the current beam of moving independent charges and displacement currents.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Physical experiments demonstrate that four fundamental laws of electromagnetism have counterexamples","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-27 06:55:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6713667/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2d8a39b0-d485-493c-a271-dea3e9f93e39","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-27T06:55:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-27 06:55:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6713667","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6713667","identity":"rs-6713667","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}