Challenging electromagnetic paradox of relativistic forces
Neil B.
Try this paradox and see if you can get work inputs and outputs of the
process to square. After playing with it, I suspect the implications
are like for the right-angle lever paradox (look that up.) IOW, it
needs "more" taken into account than the first pass, of basic theory.
Surprisingly, the relativistic dynamics of extended bodies just isn't
fully hashed out: consider that arguments over correct solution of RAL
paradox, Thomas Precession etc. kept popping into Am. J. Phys. or Il
Nuovo Cimento into the 70s. The forces here are from E and B fields but
it's the total dynamics, not electromagnetism per se, that is the basis
of the problem.
Summary in terms of xyz description: We consider a device G
incorporating a straight vertical wire segment of length w between
charge reservoirs. We can send current flowing between the reservoirs,
"forced" if need be against prevailing external fields. The same rules
for magnetic force apply as to portions of a complete circuit. Think
CGS for simplicity (same units for E and B), and v/c is significant. In
a lab/frame "K" we set up G along y-axis, hence perpendicular to a
widely-uniform B field pointing "towards viewer" (+z.)
Here's the crucial twist: attach extensive corrector-charges just beyond
the reservoirs, at each end of the wire, with average field E2 across
wire equal to 0.75 E and +y. This will compensate for the relative E1�
field from moving in B at 0.6 c, according to E� = gamma*v/c cross B.
The fields internal to G from its reservoirs are negligible compared to
this impressed E (IOW, its charge flow is a "test current.")
Move G across B at v along x (also for distance moved.) Relative B�
increases to gamma*B. The E1� field in co-moving K�, from relative
motion, is gamma*v/c cross B = 0.75 E, pointing "down." So, the net E�
fields in K� cancel out since E�2 stays the same (co-moving sources.)
Then let current I flow in G up +y for a duration delta tau (proper
time) in K�. (Time dilation makes lab duration = gamma*delta tau.)
Given the canceled E fields, there is no internal work done moving this
charge except for negligible resistance. A charge q is moved a distance
w; q = I*delta tau. (If you are worried about external fields getting
inside a conductor etc., we can substitute dielectric materials and
tangible charged bodies moved by a conveyor.)
The magnetic force f on this current in K� is Iw cross B�/c, pointing
+x. Because of time dilation, this is applied for a time gamma*delta
tau. In this case, f is positive-parallel to motion and not transformed
by velocity. Also, the forces from mutual interactions in G cancel out.
So, work W1 defined in K from f pushing G for a distance x (such as
increasing its velocity a bit, with delta v << v):
(1) W1 = f dot x = f dot v*delta t = f dot v*gamma*delta tau = IwB�v
*gamma*delta tau /c = gamma^2 * IwBv*delta tau/c.
Then we can decelerate G to rest. Now, with no induced E�, the net E
field is just the E2 = gamma*B*v/c, using previous "v" for
specification. We have to push the transported charge q back to the
starting reservoir, to return to the original state. This takes a work
W2 = -qEw = -I*delta tau*gamma*B*v*w/c. Expenditure of energy is shown
here as negative work. (Sure, time for G now runs at the rate in K, but
q is found by the duration it took in K�.) Put into the form used
above,
(2) W2 = -gamma*IwBv*delta tau/c <> -W1
The problem is, the sum of works W1 + W2 does not equal zero. It
should, since we have returned the system to the original state. (Moving
G across B back to the starting point, once the charges have been fixed
again, involves no work.) But the |ratio| = gamma. Remember that
forces from G applied to the source of B don't do any work, since we can
use a massive magnet that won't move appreciably.
I think what I call "the referred force problem" in SRT causes the
discrepancy here. That means, forces are applied with *points of
application* that move relative to a system, and then that system moves
at another velocity to do work. Maybe the rules for transformation of
force by velocity just can't handle the two-step referral. Yes the net
force on the wire is over the entire wire the whole time, but
technically, the application points move across the body, since the
charges are in a current. We can be rather sure that free "particles"
in various fields would not have this problem in the theory.
This isn't just an abstraction, however, since the force defined on the
wire should do real work according to the usual force on a wire. If G
can accelerate (let it be massive enough that delta v << v), its
increase in kinetic energy should equal the formula above for W1, which
doesn't square with W2. Also, we need f to be the same for other cases,
without the E2, so the combined works cancel as they should. The
conventional wire-force formula works fine when we have no compensating
charges. Then the net E� is just the E1� from motion in B. Then we
need to do work moving q against that during the net motion of G, rather
than against the comp. E2 field later on.
For reference, the force-transformation rules are:
f[parallel to v] = f�, f[perp. to v] = f�/gamma
I was thinking, maybe the physically real force transformation involves
interaction of forces. That would require alteration of current theory.
But the irony is, the correct result comes in the case with no comp.
charges. In that case, in the co-moving frame, B� is combined with net
E�. The discrepancy is the case with no other forces in K� than the
force of B� on the current. However, the forces for the non-discrepant
case are simplest in K: the charges all only have forces qv cross B,
where v combines motions along x and y.
This problem is very perplexing. Working on it could bring new insights
about the dynamics of extended bodies in relativity theory. Please, dig
in. I am looking for people to do parallel walk-throughs and see if you
get the same results, any ideas for special corrections, etc. Specifics
please, thanks.
Have a happy and meaningful Memorial Day evening if relevant to your
situation, otherwise just plain "have a good one."
Neil B.
news:MZudnf373tbDC4HX...@posted.widowmaker...
Typo needs correcting:
> Try this paradox and see what you get out of it. The problem involves
<snip>
> Here's the crucial twist: attach extensive corrector-charges just
> beyond the reservoirs, at each end of the wire, with average field
> E2 across wire equal to 0.75 E and +y. This will compensate for
> the relative E1� field from moving in B at 0.6 c, ...
That should read, "equal to 0.75 B ..." It's a dimensionless ratio in
CGS. The point of that E2 (subscript implied) field is to cancel out the
E caused by motion relative to B.
> E1� field from moving in B at 0.6 c, according to E� = gamma*v/c
> cross B. The fields internal to G from its reservoirs are negligible
> compared to this impressed E (IOW, its charge flow is a "test
> current.")
...
Darwin123
> Try this paradox and see if you can get work inputs and outputs of the
> process to square. After playing with it, I suspect the implications
> are like for the right-angle lever paradox (look that up.) IOW, it
> needs "more" taken into account than the first pass, of basic theory.
> Surprisingly, the relativistic dynamics of extended bodies just isn't
> fully hashed out: consider that arguments over correct solution of RAL
> paradox, Thomas Precession etc. kept popping into Am. J. Phys. or Il
Precession turned out to be the result of the torque on the right
angle lever. The two effects turned out to be complimentary. This
means that the Thomas Precession, contrary to what is still said by
many physicists, is caused by an actual torque. This torque is
associated with the forces holding the disk together.
This is why different analyses result in differnt precessions. It
turns out that the forces holding the extended object together have a
critical impact on the precession of an extended body. What is called
the Thomas Precession only works if there is no internal force keeping
the extended body rotating with a uniform frequency. Gaseous plasmas
really do precess like individual electrons in an atom.
The formula for Thomas precession works for an extended plasma,
held together by an electric field. This has been shown with regards
to synchotron radiation. However, it does not apply to a steel disk.
Alas, that was one of the big mistakes made by Weinberg. Weinberg
predicted that the Thomas Precession would end up making a soup out of
a steel disk rotated in a certain way. He did not take nto account the
elastic forces that hold the steel disk together. Solid bodies do not
precess the way individual electrons in atoms do.
> Nuovo Cimento into the 70s. The forces here are from E and B fields but
> it's the total dynamics, not electromagnetism per se, that is the basis
> of the problem.
me!
Please cite it. There are a lot of -forum members- who don't
understand the importance of dynamics in relativity problems. The
forces that hold the extended body together have to be covariant, too.
An extended body can't be analyzed by a niave use of tansforms. The
internal forces in an extended body have to be included in any
relativistic analysis.
Neglecting the internal forces is the source of many
"relativistic paradoxes." There is a statement made by some otherwise
good scientists that "there are no forces in relativity." Sadly, that
isn't true. One can never escape drawing a force diagram.
Bill Miller
>
>
>
> Try this paradox and see if you can get work inputs and outputs of the
> process to square. After playing with it, I suspect the implications are
For a solution to the Right-Angle Lever Paradox, please see Jefimenko's,
"Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory Of Relativity," pp 218 - 227. No
paradox, just an explanation that, "relatavistic transformations cannot
yield correct results unless all transformable quantities in the system
under consideration are transformed."
Sorry. I'm not interested in single stepping through your paradox, but I
suspect the solution is found in the above quote.
All the best
Bill
Martin Musatov
The paradox works/hence is resolved by "Musatov" methods: ZFX+PN=P+1//
E=MCC___go_I_Love_CADIE_GO__CADIE_GO!!!:Tansform proof, report
repost :ead "Martinian Theory" aka THEORY OF ONE, rewind ONEM, repate
past, future, present 3 tense resvert profuse under terms.
1)70 7'5~blend
2)62 7's=smooth
Continue..,'_/_6'5+:65:-36666((((((/;_/@@@')
Neil B.
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:X1ZTl.298183$4m1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> suspect the solution is found in the above quote.
>
> All the best
>
> Bill
example of the same "deceptive" relativity corrections we already know,
such as the "von Laue energy current" for the RAL (equivalent to the
stress-correction of the angular momentum). I think something new is
involved, about interactions of forces that have application points that
move on the body, also perhaps multiple forces. Note that the RAL
paradox depends critically on forces being applied at different
longitudinal positions (i.e., in depth along the line of motion.) In my
paradox, the object is flat facing in the direction of velocity. This
paradox reveals a new aspect, not just a version of the previous. IOW,
for analogy, there is a class of paradoxes involving relativity of
simultaneity, another involving acceleration changing the inertial
frame, etc. I am boldly saying, this may be a new class of paradox. That
would make it interesting physics, not just fodder for students to work
on applying what they've heard before.
Benj
Neil B. wrote:
> I am boldly saying, this may be a new class of paradox. That
> would make it interesting physics, not just fodder for students to work
> on applying what they've heard before.
Then since you intend to boldly go where no relativist has gone
before, then I presume you are serious about this.
And in that case, I would boldly suggest that putting forth your ideas
on the internet or especially here among the "I'm smarter than
Einstein" crowd is probably not worth the effort. Nobody who actually
can understand what you are saying will pay attention.
Thus, let me suggest that if you'd like people such as Bill Miller and
I to look at what you've done, ASCII formulas and pure text in some
USENET post simply isn't going to cut it. If you want a real second
opinion at least take the time to write up a nice PDF file complete
with nice pictures that illustrate what you say is a "paradox". Then
place that pdf file somewhere accessible on the net and see what
happens. The best case is your pdf file will inspire some spirited
debate here on USENET. But don't be disappointed if you get totally
ignored. My experience is that the more correct your premise the less
interest everyone will show in it. USENET is a lot like life that
way!
Neil B.
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:bcdc2998-fd3d-47a8...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Neil B. wrote:
>
>> I am boldly saying, this may be a new class of paradox. That
>> would make it interesting physics, not just fodder for students
>> to work on applying what they've heard before.
>
> Then since you intend to boldly go where no relativist has gone
> before, then I presume you are serious about this.
>
> And in that case, I would boldly suggest that putting forth your ideas
> on the internet or especially here among the "I'm smarter than
> Einstein" crowd is probably not worth the effort. Nobody who actually
> can understand what you are saying will pay attention.
>
> Thus, let me suggest that if you'd like people such as Bill Miller and
> I to look at what you've done, ASCII formulas and pure text in some
But Benj, don't you see the irony? I've had a few responses including
what you just mentioned, all but one a good serious reply! You've got a
point about the ASCII, but it is fairly readable by those used to LATEX
because of similar structure like spelled out Greek letters, etc. Yeah,
but use of symbols is better. (BTW, it is quite possible to post an RTF
file with symbol font and get those gammas right up there in plain view.
Who wouldn't be able to see it these days?) I also put this on
sci.physics.research, and they strive all the time to make serious
points in ASCII. (Look at some posts there, see the traditions they've
worked up like "@f/@x" for partial derivative etc. They do higher math;
differential forms, group theory; it's amazing.) Is there a good routine
to convert ASCII math-cobble into good formatting?
I will put an improved version of this up at
http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com. The same post here, is already up in
garish ASCII for now. (You've got to dig the sheer pretension of the
name if nothing else.)
> USENET post simply isn't going to cut it. If you want a real second
> opinion at least take the time to write up a nice PDF file complete
> with nice pictures that illustrate what you say is a "paradox". Then
> place that pdf file somewhere accessible on the net and see what
> happens. The best case is your pdf file will inspire some spirited
> debate here on USENET. But don't be disappointed if you get totally
> ignored. My experience is that the more correct your premise the less
> interest everyone will show in it. USENET is a lot like life that
> way!
>
Yeah, sadly, but in the past it was rather good for serious discussions.
There weren't many people on it yet, and serious thinkers were looking
for good dialog.
Benj
> I also put this on
> sci.physics.research, and they strive all the time to make serious
> points in ASCII. (Look at some posts there, see the traditions they've
> worked up like "@f/@x" for partial derivative etc. They do higher math;
> differential forms, group theory; it's amazing.) Is there a good routine
> to convert ASCII math-cobble into good formatting?
I wish! I've been whining about this problem forever, but nobody else
seems to think it'd be an important advance to discussion. I finally
came to the conclusion that if it was ever to get done, I'd have to be
the one doing it. And I just haven't found the time. I guess that
makes me no better than the nameless people I'm bitching about.
> I will put an improved version of this up athttp://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com. The same post here, is already up in
> garish ASCII for now. (You've got to dig the sheer pretension of the
> name if nothing else.)
And be sure to announce it on USENET when you do because that sort of
thing IS what USENET is good at!
Androcles
On May 30, 3:55 pm, "Neil B." <neil_del...@caloricmail.com> wrote:
> I also put this on
> sci.physics.research, and they strive all the time to make serious
> points in ASCII. (Look at some posts there, see the traditions they've
> worked up like "@f/@x" for partial derivative etc. They do higher math;
> differential forms, group theory; it's amazing.) Is there a good routine
> to convert ASCII math-cobble into good formatting?
I wish! I've been whining about this problem forever, but nobody else
seems to think it'd be an important advance to discussion. I finally
came to the conclusion that if it was ever to get done, I'd have to be
the one doing it. And I just haven't found the time. I guess that
makes me no better than the nameless people I'm bitching about.
> I will put an improved version of this up
> athttp://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com. The same post here, is already up in
> garish ASCII for now. (You've got to dig the sheer pretension of the
> name if nothing else.)
And be sure to announce it on USENET when you do because that sort of
thing IS what USENET is good at!
=================================================
Oh do come off it! Usenet is 1970's technobabble and good only for old
farts taking the piss out of each other. Smiffy will whine if you so much as
whisper "html".
blackhead
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> garish ASCII for now. (You've got to dig the sheer pretension of the
> name if nothing else.)
>
> > USENET post simply isn't going to cut it. If you want a real second
> > opinion at least take the time to write up a nice PDF file complete
> > with nice pictures that illustrate what you say is a "paradox". Then
> > place that pdf file somewhere accessible on the net and see what
> > happens. The best case is your pdf file will inspire some spirited
> > debate here on USENET. But don't be disappointed if you get totally
> > ignored. My experience is that the more correct your premise the less
> > interest everyone will show in it. USENET is a lot like life that
> > way!
>
> Yeah, sadly, but in the past it was rather good for serious discussions.
> There weren't many people on it yet, and serious thinkers were looking
You may not have got your question answered, but the question itself
contains interesting information. People use ASCII because people can
still read the post when its archived by Google a few years down the
road, whereas the homemade PDF file it references will be long gone,
making the original posting worthless in comparison.
> - Show quoted text -
Rock Brentwood
> Thus, let me suggest that if you'd like people such as Bill Miller and
> I to look at what you've done, ASCII formulas and pure text in some
> USENET post simply isn't going to cut it. If you want a real second
> opinion at least take the time to write up a nice PDF file complete
> with nice pictures that illustrate what you say is a "paradox".
Inasfar as USENET is archived (going all the way back to the 1981) by
Google, it's an integral part of the web and is equally accessible by
search engines.
So, nothing is ever again out of sight and out of mind. In fact things
located on USENET are becoming MORE accessible with the passing of
time -- including things I've been looking for, for a long time, but
could never find until recently a few years ago in 2000-2005 or so.
Someone (another clueless newbie) posted that "USENET is 1970's
technobabble". Number 1, USENET (in its present form) comes from
around 1987, just a few years ago, not way back in the 1970's. There
wasn't anything in the 1970's, except Arpanet (which would have been
more prophetic if they had named themselves Arplanet); and number 2,
USENET is the original form of blogosphere. What do you think blogs
are? The evolutionary descedant of the USENET, and its continuation.
They're one and the same and are now attached together as part of one
seamless continuum.
Likewise, the integration of this, the archaeo-blogosphere (aka
usenetosphere), the neo-blogosphere, the personal web sites (the
webosphere) into the researcho-sphere is (and long has) been
proceeding afoot. I, myself, have USENET articles (as well as material
from my older web sites) cited in the research literature.
The correct answer to the original question is that there is no real
answer. Interactions in the usual sense are impossible. (And the
punchline, to be delivered below, is: note the absence of the word
"relativistic", here).
The No Interaction Theorem
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#NoInteraction
In classical mechanics, the relevant no go theorem is called the "No
Interaction Theorem" (or Leutweiler's Theorem). In Quantum Theory, the
quantized form of the no interaction theorem is called Haag's theorem.
There may even be a non-relativistic form of the no interaction
theorem, and I suspect there is. Because even for a simple problem
like the Kepler problem, it appears exceedingly difficult to formulate
the interaction in the terms described in the no interaction theorem
(that is, writing down the explicit forms of the generators of the
Galilei group for the 2 body problem). Likewise, in whatever ways non-
relativistic systems, like the 2 body problem, seem to avoid the no go
result (IF they do, that is) appear to be applicable to relativstic
dynamics, as well (e.g. what's known as "constraint dynamics").
The famous n-body dynamics guru A.O. Barut made a big deal out of the
difficulty of writing down any kind of n-body interactions in his book
on classical field theory and particle dynamics "Electrodynamics and
Classical Theory of Fields and Particles". Section V ("Radiation and
Radiation Reaction") covers the motion of a charge in a field. Here,
the second issue comes to bear.
As is well-known, the moving charge is subject to a THIRD order law of
motion. But there is a good reason why laws of motion are only of the
second order.
Second Order Laws and Space-Time Boundaries
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#SecondOrder
and one of those reasons amounts to avoiding the very situation that
is brought about by this particular third order law. With the third
order law, there is no more control over the dynamics. The solutions
to the equations of motion are almost all ill-behaved. That is: for
nearly every set of pairs (initial positions, initial motions) one
finds ill-defined "runaway" solutions.
What happens is that one needs to pose additional constraints to
filter out the bad solutions. The constraints amount to an integral
relation that constrains the initial acceleration. In turn, this
amounts to a de facto force law whose most salient feature is that the
motion of charges is subject to the FUTURE values of the force acting
on it, and is subject to its FUTURE positions.
That is, there is a NEGATIVE response time for the charge. It response
curve is exponential (which is also why you have the runaway solutions
in general, in the first place), and for electrons, the time factor is
equivalent to around 10^{-15} meters/c. Causality breaks down.
This, too, is a classical result that has a quantized form: the so-
called no go theorem in quantum field theory for the position
operator. The no go theorem shows that the definition of a position
operator for one-particle states leads, as a consequence, to a
violation of causality -- on the same order as above.
Barut lowers the boom by the time we reach subsection 6. "Although the
solution of the integro-differential Equation 5.96 are uniquely
determined by initial position and velocity, this equation is still
quite different from the Newton equations. THE CAUSALITY IN THE USUAL
SENSE DOES NOT HOLD: not only is the acceleration at time s determined
by all the future motion, but also the motion starts BEFORE the action
of the force. For example, if the force is zero for s < s_0, the
acceleration of the particle is different from zero fr s < s_0. But
the time constant for these poenomena as given by the experimental
factor exp(-s/tau) is very small. For electron tau = 0.62 x 10^{-22}
seconds. The CLASSICAL PICTURE SURELY BREAKS DOWN in what happens over
such small time intervals (think of the uncertainty principle). Even
if it did not, these phenomena cannot be observed at the present time
[1964, this is the 1980 edition]. At any rate the MICROCAUSALITY would
no longer be valid ..."
(emphases mine)
("microcausality", that is: a reference to the very thing that the
existence of a position operator in quantum field theory is breaking)
Interestingly, the causality violation is still within experimental
bounds ... so that it is NOT ruled out as a possibility!
This, too, may be a result that also has a nion-relativistic version.
There is no appearance of c anywhere here. Even if there were, as I've
pointed out recently in s.p.r. the Galilean limit of electromagnetism
is correctly carried out by splitting the concept of "wave speed" V
from invariant speed "c" (and letting only c -> infinity, while V
remains finite). The "c"'s in the argument may actaully only be V's.
In that case, the problem cited by Barut ALSO applies to non-
relativistic theory!
And I'm fairly certain it does. So, even NON-relativistic dynamics in
its usual form would be ruled out.
Rock Brentwood
> You may not have got your question answered, but the question itself
> contains interesting information. People use ASCII because people can
> still read the post when its archived by Google a few years down the
> road, whereas the homemade PDF file it references will be long gone,
> making the original posting worthless in comparison.
The issue is a non-issue. I transcribe entire books by hand about as
fast as a person can read it; and, nowadays, I "read" almost
exclusively by writing what I read.
ASCII is a complete non-issue and is (at least to me) is perceived as
nothing more than a minor font alteration. The argument you raised is,
in fact, the only important argument: and it's the reason I
INTENTIONALLY dump stuff out in ASCII on the USENET. It's permanently
archived. USENET is (and for 20+ years has been) a Blog -- except one
that will remain intact all the way out to the year 3000.
The PDF's on personal web sites, in contrast? Well, good luck with
that. And the Way Back Machine? How's that working out lately? I can't
even find my own stuff using that, anymore; and the links I've
archived that go through it are all broken.
Rock Brentwood
> Try this paradox and see if you can get work inputs and outputs of the
> process to square.
The minute you pose any problem in electromagnetic theory, you've just
about guaranteed that whatever you have has NOTHING to do with
Relativity, and that the very notion of relativity is a complete red
herring!
The reason is simple: the very same results will apply intact in non-
relativistic form, because electromagnetic theory, itself, can be
rendered so. That's because Maxwell's equations (as well as the force
law) have precisely the same form, independent of space-time signature
(and therefore independent of whether it's relativistic or non-
relativistic):
div D = rho; curl H - @D/@t = J; div B = 0; curl E + @B/@t = 0
F = e (E + v x B); P = e v.E (F, P being the force and power).
The ONLY feature distinguishing the relativistic and non-relativistic
forms of the theory are that the constitutive law:
D = epsilon E; B = mu H
for isotropic media also holds for the vacuum in relativistic theory,
when (epsilon, mu) = (epsilon_0, mu_0). Otherwise they only hold in a
distinguihed frame of reference (the "frame of isotropy"). In a moving
frame of reference, using Maxwell's notation of denoting the velocity
of the isotropy frame by G, the constitutive laws become
D + alpha G x H = epsilon(E + G x B)
B - alpha G x E = mu(H - G x D).
The part "E + G x B" was used by Maxwell (in fact, he integrated the G
x B term into his definition of E, which was E = -grad phi - @A/@t + G
x B). The part "H - G x D" was later noted by Thomson in the 3rd
edition of Maxwell's treatise. The parameter alpha is what
distinguishes the relativistic form (alpha = (1/c)^2) from the non-
relativistic form (alpha = 0). The general relations were written down
by Einstein & Laub in 1908-1909, as well as by Minkowski in 1908.
So, the entire distinction betwen the relativistic and non-
relativistic forms of the theory boils down that one tiny
insignificant parameter "alpha".
And I highly doubt that it is involved anywhere in anything you're
presenting. Therefore, whatever you're arguing, without realising it
you almost certainly are overshooting your target and ALSO arguing
against NON-relativistic theory!
Unless, or until you can clarify how what you have can slice through
the razor-thin line that distinguishes the two forms of Maxwell's
theory, there's nothing for anyone to look at, because unless or until
that distinction is made or its relevance proven, relativity is
nothing more than a red herring, and you're actually proving (that is:
trying to prove) the non-existence of ALL dynamics, both relativistic
and non-relativistic!
Benj
> ASCII is a complete non-issue and is (at least to me) is perceived as
> nothing more than a minor font alteration. The argument you raised is,
> in fact, the only important argument: and it's the reason I
> INTENTIONALLY dump stuff out in ASCII on the USENET. It's permanently
> archived. USENET is (and for 20+ years has been) a Blog -- except one
> that will remain intact all the way out to the year 3000.
archived that go through it are all broken.
Actually there are many issues here that are important and I think we
can agree that blogs and PDF files are not the answer. The problem
with ASCII math as the problem with ASCII drawings is that they are
primitive, inadequate for many purposes and in general suck. The same
problem exists with binary images. In the case of images a way was
invented to transmit them over an ASCII channel. Yes it uses space and
is less than adequate but it does work. In the case of math formulas a
similar solution can be used but better would be to invent a language
of formulation (pretty much like is used now in ASCII) that is more or
less human readable, but also to have software that can recognize that
formulation for what it is (as is done with images which are not
visible in ASCII) and substitute real mathematical graphics into the
text of a reader so-equipped. This is not rocket science. And it's
not even a huge programming problem. The problem is that nobody (me
included) has got up off their fat ass to do it...yet. But what that
means that if someone is going to ask a complex question, it is going
to be difficult to understand unless the person tempted to answer has
taken time to learn a new language (ASCII math formulation) as you
have. And that is the crux of the problem. The PDF is really only a
quick work-around "patch" for use until the real problem is solved.
Now the disappearance of blogs and websites is a major internet
historical record problem. But before I let you give me the warm
fuzzies over the wonder of USENET, allow me to point out that 3000
years is probably more than a bit optimistic given the problems with
USENET. We not only have Google taking it over and censoring content
and historical records if the mood suits them or does suit them in the
future (always the problem win only one place gets in control) but the
alternatives (ever since the privatization of the backbone) are slowly
disappearing as independent servers get slower and slower and show
fewer and fewer posts and retain them for shorter and shorter times.
These are serious problems that those of us who see the democratic
utility of USENET are getting more and more worried about. Personally,
I would not be at all surprised to see USENET simply disappear one of
these days to be replaced by a cyber version of the "free speech
zones" that are put in place around political conventions to which
rights which were once the hallmark of the entire country are now
restricted.
No warm fuzzies for me, bub.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Neil B. wrote:
> > I am boldly saying, this may be a new class of paradox. That
> > would make it interesting physics, not just fodder for students to work
> > on applying what they've heard before.
>
> Then since you intend to boldly go where no relativist has gone
> before, then I presume you are serious about this.
>
> And in that case, I would boldly suggest that putting forth your ideas
> on the internet or especially here among the "I'm smarter than
> Einstein" crowd is probably not worth the effort. Nobody who actually
> can understand what you are saying will pay attention.
Well, that's given, Since photons are a neo-religion, rather than
science.
A religion on the cutting-edge of Chrylser to be exact for the
exacto-mundo cranks.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
However, just, do not ever miss, that along the history, anything which has
had provided any connection among a people, as a newspapers, as the phone as
in the meantime the net, which is the worst what has had happened to the
politics...
Therefore, that connection, a definitely has had always disturbed the
politics and reduced their illusory power, and this is what is all about, a
definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> kirjoitti
viestiss�:bd30c8ec-0ca2-4be7...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
On Jun 5, 11:32 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ASCII is a complete non-issue and is (at least to me) is perceived as
> nothing more than a minor font alteration. The argument you raised is,
> in fact, the only important argument: and it's the reason I
> INTENTIONALLY dump stuff out in ASCII on the USENET. It's permanently
> archived. USENET is (and for 20+ years has been) a Blog -- except one
> that will remain intact all the way out to the year 3000.
archived that go through it are all broken.
Actually there are many issues here that are important and I think we
can agree that blogs and PDF files are not the answer. The problem
with ASCII math as the problem with ASCII drawings is that they are
primitive, inadequate for many purposes and in general suck.
=================================================
You mean like this?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
Oh wait... Dork Van de moortel is himself primitive, inadequate for
any purpose and in general sucks.
Neil B.
"Rock Brentwood" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52a11fa9-b41e-4c8d...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
[end quoted]
Speaking of broken: this OE 6 program used to almost always properly ">"
quoted material, which makes following the thread easy. Now (like this
time) it's hit or miss. If I upgrade to IE8, will OE be upgraded and
improved accordingly? (I avoided the creepy IE7 as so many did! I
figure: IE7:IE8 :~: Vista:Windows7?). Another flaw: my OE reader/news
provider shows me all the new comments on sci.physics.electromag, but
not when checking the other groups. Hence I missed the June comments
since I was only checking sci.physics.relativity for awhile.
But sadly, Google Groups archives are now also very hit or miss. (I
don't know why WBM is withering.) Is it the new owners? I put up an
eventually sprawling discussion, "The problematical nature of photon
spin" to sci.physics.research on Dec 1 1999. When I look for the title
(or even portions) in general GG search, it doesn't come up. Yet when
"in" SPR, I searched it out and the link
(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/18d275e7eaa22079/443cbaf78b2aa189?lnk=gst&q=problematical+nature#443cbaf78b2aa189)
came up. Weird.
BTW that was a very challenging paradox, let me summarize: I used
"pulses" but lets say photons now: A source D "at rest" emits RH
polarized (relative to their own lines of propagation) photons in
opposite directions along "y". Angular momentum is conserved. But now
look at D moving for us along x at say, 0.8 c. To us, the photons go at
an angle tan theta = +/-0.75 (arrgh! ASCII greek!) Their spin vectors
are parallel to the line of motion in *our* frame, hence tilted relative
to y. Their combined spin vectors no longer add to zero! Yes, photons
aren't points in motion but they can be directed, can have an
expectation value of propagation (and we can do many runs of the
emission, etc. so there should be an ensemble value for the setup.)
People argued and argued about it, never IMHO resolving it. One solution
was for photon prop vector to be displaced relative to other observers
dependent on circular polarization. That makes a compensatory angular
momentum from the displaced linear momentum of the photon. Well? I never
heard of that. And at high velocities, (no time to explain here) we'd
have a problem of displacement being more than the wavelength of the
observed radiation and thus hard to "hide" through uncertainty
relations. It also seems there are many troubles thus caused about the
locus of absorption on a moving detector, etc. (It's one of those
things, in these paradoxes, like you push in a rug bubble and another
appears elsewhere ...)
As for the current (pun intended) paradox here, just do the math and
see there's a problem. Please, actually *work it out* and don't just
assume and circumambulate. And BTW it isn't just about or resolvable
IMHO in terms of Maxwell equations etc.: those just apply to how fields
are generated by sources and how they change w.r.t other fields. As
problems like RAL paradox and my paradox/es show, this approach is
"incomplete" because forces applied to extended structures must go
beyond those considerations. Matter is "held together" in effect in
other ways (for particles, Feynman's "rubber bands"!) and not a bunch of
freely interacting little charges in space. Hence, we have all the weird
arguments about stressed bodies, the Lorentz contraction of the
periphery of a speeded-up rotating wheel, etc. Hence your objections
elsewhere/s in the thread, that relativistic issues shouldn't matter, is
based on a misunderstanding. I even said in the OPP, that EM forces only
serve to "set up" the paradox. It isn't about "fields and particles" per
se, (or certainly, not what can happen in EM about those entities alone)
but what happens when the application points of forces can move upon the
extended bodies the forces are applied to.
I do appreciate all those links and the discussion of weird problems
with Abraham-Lorentz self-force etc. (Well, Maxwell equations didn't
predict the value of that or those problems either, did they?)
blackhead
Interesting. Do you have any further references on the point about
Maxwell's equations being both relativistic and non-relativistic?
Neil B.
"Neil B." <neil_...@caloricmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ocydnd-R36Yfq4bX...@posted.widowmaker...
>
>
>
> process to square. After playing with it, I suspect the implications
> are like for the right-angle lever paradox (look that up.) IOW, it
> needs "more" taken into account than the first pass, of basic theory.
> Surprisingly, the relativistic dynamics of extended bodies just isn't
> fully hashed out: consider that arguments over correct solution of RAL
> paradox, Thomas Precession etc. kept popping into Am. J. Phys. or Il
> Nuovo Cimento into the 70s. The forces here are from E and B fields
> but it's the total dynamics, not electromagnetism per se, that is the
> basis of the problem.
>
>
I believe I've solved this. The extra work to balance it all out, comes
from the changed electromagnetic inertia of the charges that were moved
across the wire segment, combined with the attached field-corrector
charge distribution. Thanks to the commenters for various insights. I
don't think it's really related to the RA lever paradox after all, since
EM inertia involves acceleration distorting the fields and thus the
forces between distributions of charge. That makes them act as if
heavier or lighter, so they do a different amount of work when
decelerated than if that distortion didn't occur.
Sue...
> "Neil B." <neil_del...@caloricmail.com> wrote in message
Actually nano-fabricators are at the cutting edge
of this sort of theory. If they swap an E and B
in the wrong place, the nano-motor throws a rod.
The tweaks are usually applied here:
Green's functions
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html
Sue...