Beckmann's theory crumbles
Andreas Nowatzyk
Phys Letters 7, p241, 1963) is sufficient to falsify Beckman's theory.
It is also a very simple and neat experiment:
T ------------> R
A transmitter T for electromagnetic waves (here 3.48*10^18 Hz was used)
and a receiver R are rigidly mounted 8.1 cm apart in a vacuum vessel.
The receiver can measure the frequency of the received signal down to
better than 3 Mhz. This extraordinary precision is due to the use of
the Moessbauer effect. A convenient transmitter of this frequency is
a gamma radiator (a 57Co source). As far as this experiment is concerned,
the nature of the transmitter is not important as long as it's frequency
does not change more than 1 in 10^12. Moessbauer experiments have been
performed with other sources, such as synchrotron radiation from large
storage rings.
The transmitter/receiver pair is now rotated horizontally at various speeds.
Since the distance between T and R does not change, a non-isotopic speed
of light must cause a periodic frequency change of T's signal as seen by R.
Control experiments verified that the distance between T and R is indeed
constant and does not suffer from some vibration due to the rotation.
Within the limitations of the experiment, no such frequency shift was
observed and an upper limit of 1.6 m/s was established for a possible
variation in C.
In a feeble attempt to weasel out and save some money, Vince Cate objects
that the presented experiment is based on the assumption that T's or R's
frequency does not change when they move. (The atomic clock experiment is
irrelevant in this case: the 2 units moved along opposite path, while T
and R are spinning along the same path).
This assumption is indeed made, but it is a very well tested one: Conventional
Moessbauer effect measurements use the linear doppler shift. In this case,
either T or R is held stationary while the other is moving. Horizontal
set-up would show different results when operated north-south vs. east-west.
No such discrepancy occurs. There is however an interesting effect if the
set-up is operated vertically (up-down movement). Frequency shifts due to
the earths gravity were observed, as predicted by GR.
Furthermore, applying the formula given in Vince's posts gives a frequency
shift that is several orders of magnitude higher than needed to compensate
the frequency shift due to non-isotopic C. T/R were moving quite fast,
about 310 m/s!
--
-- Andreas Nowatzyk (DC5ZV)
Carnegie-Mellon University a...@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Computer Science Department (412) 268-3617
Greg
>The experiment found by Greg Hennessy (Champeney, Isaak, and Kahn,
>Phys Letters 7, p241, 1963) is sufficient to falsify Beckman's theory.
I once saw a bad horror movie, "Creepshow", which I thought contained
nothing of value. But I see now that one scene was quite relevant to
real life: At one point, a man was approached by two monstrous
incarnations of people he had murdered. He shot each of them in the
head, but they continued toward him, saying, "You can't kill us! We're
already dead!"
---
Greg
Andreas Nowatzyk
>I once saw a bad horror movie, "Creepshow",....
Care to explain what a horror movie has to do with this discussion?
A Theory is falsified if it predicts results that contradict experimental
data. In this case, the prediction was that the speed of light depends on
the motion of the experiment. Experiments should show a difference of about
600m/s for the east-west vs. west-east speed of light due to the rotation
of the earth.
Several experiments established limits on this speed difference of
1.6 m/s and down to 0.05 m/s. This may not qualify for Vince's prize
(he is the judge with some of his own money on the line), but it is
sufficient to dismiss Beckmann's theory.
Doug Merritt
>>I once saw a bad horror movie, "Creepshow",....
>
>Care to explain what a horror movie has to do with this discussion?
He was making a joke; lighten up. There have been a number of much more
nasty comments that would be more appropriate to target if you want to take
it upon yourself to keep things on track.
Doug
--
Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
Beckman
>>The experiment found by Greg Hennessy (Champeney, Isaak, and Kahn,
>>Phys Letters 7, p241, 1963) is sufficient to falsify Beckman's theory.
>I once saw a bad horror movie, "Creepshow", which I thought contained
>nothing of value. But I see now that one scene was quite relevant to
>real life: At one point, a man was approached by two monstrous
>incarnations of people he had murdered. He shot each of them in the
>head, but they continued toward him, saying, "You can't kill us! We're
>already dead!"
>Greg
The reason why they can't kill ME seems to be different. Not counting
postings like yours, I have been shot at three times:
1) With the maser experiments, which show an unexplained shift
with orientation, attributed to magnetic fields and stray effects;
2) With the Brillet-Hall experiment, which again showed this shift,
attributed to unknown mechanical effects;
3) With an experiment based on a calculation of a FIRST-ORDER effect in
the Galilean transformation that is allegedly absent under the Lorentz
transformation.
It was the last of these that prompted you to write this insight about
falsifying a theory. Even if freshmen are not explicitly told that to first
order the two transformations become identical, it is my opinion that they
should be able to look, on their own bold initiative, what the lowest
power of beta in the Lorentz transformation is.
(You ARE a freshman, aren't you?)
Petr Beckmann
Beckman
Well, I am back as I promised 10 days ago. What I found was more
name calling, derision of "Beckmann science," "Beckmann Bible,"
claims that I am fraudulent and know nothing about work, etc., ending
with a guilt-by-association piece about some ether-believer unknown to
me. There was even a touch of racism in the "Herr Beckmann," as if I were
German, and as if it mattered if I were. Are you so short of
arguments that you have to impugn your opponents' integrity and claim
that they are "idiot or fraud"? I repeat that I have no time for ignorant
loutishness, and I will instead turn to the issues:
1) the question of action and reaction;
2) Mr Hennessy's three attempts to win the offered prize.
Action and reaction: I claimed that the Einstein Theory violated
Newton's Third Law, and that it therefore has to POSTULATE the
conservation of momentum via Hamilton's principle.
I received no serious reply to Graneau's experiment disproving the
Lorentz-invariant Biot-Savart Law and supporting the action-reaction-
obeying Ampere Law. I also gave two theoretical examples. Somebody posted
a long-winded piece to show that Biot-Savart does NOT violate action-
reaction when there is a closed current loop. This is correct, but has
been brought up before and I answered it. To my previous answer, I add:
where is the closed current loop when you have two charges moving in non-
parallel directions?
To my example of the asymmetry between stationary charge and
charge moving at right angles to the line joining them, we had the
following contribution:
>Ah, here we go. Once again we see that the more specific you are, the
>clearer the answer. In this case you have omitted the magnetic field of
>the moving charge. Add the force due to the magnetic field and see if
>that just doesn't solve your misunderstanding.
>________________________________________________________________________
>Matt Crawford Have loutishness, will travel ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
I saved the message before I left, and found it withdrawn on my
return. Presumably somebody told him that if you add the magnetic field
of the moving charge (yes, of course there is one), it will do exactly
nothing for restoring the action-reaction equality.
There was some more head-scratching, such as this contribution from
something called "The Master-Buster:"
>I'd have to work the math to see where this comes from, and based on the
>quality of your previous arguments, it is just not worth the bother.
After some equally adroit attempts to restore Newton's Third Law,
we finally had this from Mr Schinder:
> There is no instantaneous
>action-at-a-distance, and no need to obey Newton's Third
>(action-reaction) Law.
I never claimed that it was instantaneous (I refer you again to
Gerber's paper on Mercury!). But the rest of the statement is indeed what
Einsteinians are reduced to on this point when they come out of the
closet. That is what I claimed to begin with; so what, pray, apart from
the numerous insults, was the in-between about?
I will post messages on Mr Hennesy's elusive prize next.
Petr Beckmann
Greg S. Hennessy
(Beckman) writes:
# 3) With an experiment based on a calculation of a FIRST-ORDER effect in
#the Galilean transformation that is allegedly absent under the Lorentz
#transformation.
# Even if freshmen are not explicitly told that to first
#order the two transformations become identical, it is my opinion that they
#should be able to look, on their own bold initiative, what the lowest
#power of beta in the Lorentz transformation is.
Point one.
There are at least two people named "Greg" posting on this thread.
Myself, gs...@virginia.edu, and a greg at Berkeley. Please be careful
in not confusing us. Mr. Beckmann wrote included a "paragraph" that
contained two lines written by me and three lines written by Greg at
Berkeley in such a fashion that it would be very easy to think that
one person wrote the entire paragraph.
Point two.
There have been references to experiments done with the Maussbauer
effect of Fe lines which show that the speed of light is isotropic to
an accuracy of centimeters per second. These experiments will not
satisfy Mr. Cate for the prize, since Mr. Cate desires a purely
optical experiment before he will award the prize money. Since it is
partially his money, this is allowed. However, these experiments are
sufficient to disprove your theory.
Point three.
I showed how the experiment by Byl et al shows a first order effect in
V/c. Using Mr. Beckmann's theory, (or what I understand Mr. Beckmann's
theory to be after reading the first 100 pages of his book) it is
predicted that there would be 11 fringe shifts as the equipment was
rotated 180 degrees. GR predicts no phase shift, to the accuracy of
the experiment. No phase shift was found. You are simply asserting
that there would be a second order effect. Please present your
calculations, or indicate where you think my derivation is incorrect,
besides two typos in my origional post. Why don't you look at the
derivations?
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Beckman
>Myself, gs...@virginia.edu, and a greg at Berkeley. Please be careful
>in not confusing us.
truth with Gr...@Jello.Berkeley's ill-mannered incompetence.
>Please present your
>calculations, or indicate where you think my derivation is incorrect,
>besides two typos in my origional post. Why don't you look at the
>derivations?
It seems to me that you missed my posting in message
ID <13...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> (No. 10671 on my machine) from which it
is surely clear that I did read your derivation and did correct your
error -- the small, but fatal one, besides the big error that to
first order there CANNOT be any difference between the Galilean and
Lorentz transformation.
Here is the correction of your derivation in more detail, again:
Your derivation has the observer moving with respect to the water,
whereas in fact they are both moving at the same speed through the
postulated ether. The time difference in one direction is
1/(c/n +Fv -v) - 1/(c-v), where F is the Fresnel dragging coefficient
and v is the velocity of the apparatus through the assumed ether
(which you forgot in the first denominator). In the opposite
direction, use the same formula with the sign of v reversed, then
take the difference of these two results. I am sure that to first
order you will get a zero like everybody else over the last 180 years.
(Another subscriber to this group told me by E-mail that a computer
calculation for the SECOND order difference yielded 1E-12 of one
fringe.) I repeat that all of this is merely the fine mechanics of
what MUST have gone wrong when you thought a first-order difference
between Galilean and Lorentz transformation was detectable (in either
theory or experiment).
I urge you also to read the messages preceding the mentioned one,
where your remaining point about the Moessbauer effect has been
answered, too.
Petr Beckmann
Beckman
When you reach age 65, time acquires a special preciousness, and
that is my main reason for saying goodbye to this group, for my time is
wasted by all this heckling from loudmouthed beginners.
What distresses me is not their insults (how can anyone be
offended by insults from would-be physicists who use perceived first-
order differences between Galileo and Lorentz?)
What does distress me is the lamentable lack of reasoning ability
among aspiring physicists.
I say "your argument is invalid: apply it to sound, and it will
prove that the velocity of sound is a universal constant;" and
somebody answers "Well, sound is different from light." And only one
man (Thank you, Mr. Van Pelt!) comes to my defense after this
incredible reply.
I put my finger on the exact spot where the isotropy/relativity
derivation is flawed; and Schinder refutes that spot with "I ordered
the derivation, read it and find it rigorous and beautiful."
Only this morning somebody asserts for the nth time that Biot-
Savart works for a closed current loop (which I, for the nth time,
confirm), but he does not even seem to realize that what is
interesting is the case when the law is violated: the cases when
it applies will not resurrect it.
With this type of reasoning ability, what's the use of telling
them that the (undisputed) Lorentz-invariance of the (undisputed)
Maxwell equations does not by itself imply the physical validity of
the Lorentz transformation? Validity to these people is what teacher
told them.
This is well observable in Schinder's religious rites. He rejects
THIS Big Authority and accepts THAT Big Authority, but he still needs
a Big Authority to parrot. Then he condescendlingly tells us what
physics is about.
Well, let me tell you that there are only three Big Authorities in
physics, and here are their names: EXPERIMENT, FLAWLESS REASONING and
OCCAM'S RAZOR. Nothing else. The rest come and go, though quite a lot
remains of (some) human transients as the quest for truth continues.
My E-mail shows more open minds than I had expected, though of
course independent minds have always been in short supply. (George
Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts to the world; the
unreasonable man expects the world to adapt to him. Hence progress
depends on the unreasonable.") To them I say that the real meat would
have come with the electron oscillations derivable directly from the
Maxwell equations which contradict Einstein's interpretation of the
Relativity Principle. However, I am no longer willing to spend time
fighting the half-learned obstructionists, and I will refer you to
my paper accepted for presentation at the meeting of URSI-US (Intern.
Radio-Scientific Union, US) in Boulder, Colo., Jan 3-5. A preprint of
the paper, "The double-slit paradox" will be available in Mid-December
for a self-addressed business-sized envelope from
Galilean Electrodynamics,
Box 251,
Boulder, CO 80306.
(Foreign requests need not send intl. coupons; US requests should be
stamped, but I will pay the 25 cents if you don't have them.)
Thereafter, if you are interested, you will know how to keep in touch.
But physics is not done by majority vote, though the great
conformist majority thinks so. The trouble-free way, and the one to
protect your investment in learning (heretics have to do a lot of RE-
learning) is to follow not experiment, reason and Occam's Razor, but
the Big Authorities who CLAIM they use all three. (Yes, I claim so,
too; but I am asking YOU to use them, not to trust me blindly.) The
majority of people are blind followers; in academia these types are
assured of a fine career, respect, and a lot less work than is put in
by their brethren, successful clerks in a well-established insurance
company.
If you are one of those who blindly cheered at what was palmed off
as physics here, I leave you to the religious rites of the Schinders,
Crawfords and Greg@Jello's, who are well on their way to priesthood,
which they will surely attain when they learn to avoid some of the
more blatant sins against their own religion.
It is not a very enticing prospect, but it is one you make by your
own choice, and if you choose it, I leave you to it with a broad,
gleeful grin.
Byebye!
Petr Beckmann
David Palmer
>Lorentz-invariant Biot-Savart Law and supporting the action-reaction-
>obeying Ampere Law.
Well, here goes. I read Graneau's papers a year or so ago and posted the
following to this newsgroup. Basically, Graneau does not realize that
a railgun uses an electric CIRCUIT. He assumes that the only current carrying
elements are the two parallel rails and the projectile. Completing the
circuit fixes the problem.
David Palmer
pal...@tybalt.caltech.edu
...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
Meanwhile, on eng.string.floss, the waxed vs. unwaxed flamewar
continues unabated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the boons said to be provided by SDI research is the discovery that
relativity is wrong. This is based on a series of articles in Electronic
Engineering Times, which refers to a paper by Peter Graneau.
I have looked at the paper in question (J. Phys. D 20(3):391-393), and I
have come to the conclusion that the author does not know how a railgun works.
The basic format of a railgun is:
--------
|+ |
battery ========================================
|- P
switch P
| ========================================
| |
--------
Where the battery is a large (really large, wow it's big) homopolar
generator, capacitor bank, or other DC power source. P is the
projectile: a conductor free to slide along the conducting rails.
When the switch is closed, current flows clockwise out of the battery,
out the top rail, through the projectile, back along the bottom rail,
through the switch and into the battery. This produces a magnetic
field in the loop which accelerates the (current-carrying) projectile
out to the right.
This is all well and good and understood by anyone who has taken
three quarters of frosh E&M.
Graneau, on the other hand, believes that this contradicts all known
theory. His reasoning (paraphrased) is as follows:
1) The projectile moves because EM radiation impinges on the
back of the projectile, bounces off, and flies out the breach
of the railgun.
2) In order to conserve momentum, the EM radiation coming out
the breach of the railgun must have as much momentum
as the projectile coming out the muzzle.
3) For each mass m of projectile coming out at velocity u,
you need breech radiation with energy such that:
E(rad)/c = p(rad) = p(proj) = mu
E(rad) = muc
= 2 k.e.(proj) c/u
{k.e.(proj) = kinetic energy of projectile}
4) For a muzzle velocity of 4 km/s, this gives an efficiency
k.e.(proj)/(E(rad)+ke(proj)) = 1/150,000
5) The efficiency of a railgun is much better than that
(I neglected to write down what the efficiency was) and
so there is obviously something wrong with the argument.
Graneau decided that relativity was vanquished and we had to retreat back
to the nineteenth century to find theory to explain it.
Almost everyone else who reads his paper will decide that step 1) is
wrong. That is not the way a railgun works, and so the whole argument
is horsewash.
A railgun can be thought of as acting in a manner similar to a gas-gun,
such as an air-rifle, musket, cannon, pea-shooter, etc. The current in
the loop produces a magnetic field (into the screen in this case)
which exerts a 'pressure' on the current carrying wires. The total
force outwards on all the wires adds up to zero. (The rails are pressed
up and down, the projectile is pushed right, and the wires, battery,
and switch going to the rails are pushed left.) Since the projectile
is free to slide right, the rest of the railgun recoils left. This
is how a railgun could be used as a propulsion device, using the
projectiles as reaction mass.
In short, if this paper is typical of SDI funded research, we would
probably be better off giving the money to the creationists
instead. At least they are amusing. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Palmer
pal...@tybalt.caltech.edu
...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
Meanwhile, on eng.string.floss, the waxed vs. unwaxed flamewar
continues unabated.
antonio.desimone
>
> When you reach age 65, time acquires a special preciousness, and
> that is my main reason for saying goodbye to this group, for my time is
> wasted by all this heckling from loudmouthed beginners.
> Byebye!
> Petr Beckmann
Well put. I scan the group occasionally and by now I reflexively
ignore articles on relativity or on measurement problems in the
quantum theory because most of the posters don't have a clue about
the issues, much less interesting insights. I've noticed this
since I was an undergraduate: what is it about those fields that
attracts crackpot thinkers? And why are they so vocal? You rarely
see loonies interested condensed matter theory. (OK, occasionally
you do but at least they do it professionally!) What's their
goal? To talk like a physicist? Impress their friends at
parties? They should all sit down with the nine (?) volumes of
Landau and Lifshitz to see if their "insight" is addressed there
before wasting bandwidth on the net with inane dribble.
I haven't followed the "Beckmann" controversy: I'm not criticizing
the particulars in that discussion so please don't bother
responding. (Or use a catchy subject line like "Bell's
Inequalities and the Twin Paradox" so I know to ignore your
posting.)
What the net needs is a *moderated* physics discussion
group/mailing list. Does one exist? Is there anyone with the
time and inclination (and maybe a *little* understanding) to
moderate such a group?
Ahhh, at least there's "What's News"....
--
Tony DeSimone
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Holmdel, NJ 07733
att!tds386e!tds
Steven Daryl McCullough
> ...I scan the group occasionally and by now I reflexively
> ignore articles on relativity or on measurement problems in the
> quantum theory because most of the posters don't have a clue about
> the issues, much less interesting insights. I've noticed this
> since I was an undergraduate: what is it about those fields that
> attracts crackpot thinkers? And why are they so vocal? You rarely
> see loonies interested condensed matter theory.
Are you just being rhetorical, or are you genuinely puzzled? In every
field, there are a few ideas that seem to touch on deep issues involving
the nature of our world. Then there are areas that seem like details of
interest only to the specialist. In the former category, I would place
Goedel's theorem for mathematics, evolution for biology, artificial
intelligence for computer science, and relativity and quantum mechanics
for physics. It's not puzzling to me that condensed matter theory does
not generate that kind of interest.
It is my guess that the areas with more "philosophical" content are
mainly what draw people into a field in the first place. It is only
later that mainstream workers in a field come to the conclusion that
relativity is no more paradoxical than Newtonian physics, or that
Goedel's theorem is just another mathematical theorem with nothing
to say about consciousness or the mind. The people you call "crackpots"
and "loonies" just haven't learned enough to be jaded.
Daryl McCullough
antonio.desimone
> In article <59...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, t...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (antonio.desimone) writes
>
>> ...I scan the group occasionally and by now I reflexively
>> ignore articles on relativity or on measurement problems in the
>> quantum theory because most of the posters don't have a clue about
>> the issues, much less interesting insights. I've noticed this
>> since I was an undergraduate: what is it about those fields that
>> attracts crackpot thinkers? And why are they so vocal? You rarely
>> see loonies interested condensed matter theory.
>
> Are you just being rhetorical, or are you genuinely puzzled? In every
> field, there are a few ideas that seem to touch on deep issues involving
> the nature of our world. Then there are areas that seem like details of
> interest only to the specialist. In the former category, I would place
> to say about consciousness or the mind. The people you call "crackpots"
> and "loonies" just haven't learned enough to be jaded.
>
> Daryl McCullough
I must have been having a bad day when I wrote this. Yes I was
being retorical, and probably being too hard on most people who are
peripherally but genuinely interested in physics. I don't
think I'm jaded, and I know I wasn't trying to pick on those with
real curiosity but limited exposure to the subject. But I don't
think "loony" is too strong for some of the postings I've
seen about beating-the-uncertainty-principle or
holes-in-relativity. If one's interest is in the philisophical
underpinnings, fine: sit down with Dirac or Feynmann or any of a
dozen texts and try to learn something. Or even post and ask
questions. But hold the arrogance. The chance that you have
found the thread that leads to the unravelling of quantum theory
or Einstein's relativity based on uninformed musings is
infinitesimal, and not worth the wasted network bandwidth.
(Speaking of arrogance, I displayed too much in my original
posting: you have my apology.)
I think anyone who did a little serious reading would find
facinating issues in many areas of physics, and would find that
one does not come to grips with the "philosophical underpinnings"
by *just* looking for contradictions. It's a mistake to think of
other fields as mere "details for specialists." For example, no one
interested in quantum physics should be ignorant of the Hamiltonian
formulation of *classical* mechanics and its relation to optics
(as pointed out by Hamilton long before anyone thought about
quantum theory). Quantum mechanics begins to look very natural,
and classical intuition rather feeble.
On reflection, condensed matter physics (or at least
thermodynamics) *does* attract its share of loonies: I guess the
perpetual motion machine folks have just been quiet lately.
Steven Daryl McCullough
memory lives on. I am disappointed because he left a lot of questions
unanwered. Before this thread dies completely, I would like to
summarize my understanding of where Beckmann has left us. I would be
pleased if Beckmann would comment on these points, but if he is
serious about dropping out of the newsgroup, then perhaps Vince Cate
(or anyone else who understands Beckmann's theory) could reply on his
behalf.
I apologize if I am being unfair to Beckmann in the following, and I
also apologize for its extreme length.
(I) Beckmann's theory and experimental results:
First of all, Beckmann has a theory that incorporates electrodynamics
and gravity. His theory has some of the same features of Einstein's
theory of special relativity; in particular the nonexistence of a
universal reference frame. However, his theory differs from SR in that
it posits the existence of *locally* preferred reference frames.
Roughly speaking (which is the best I can do; since Beckmann's book is
not in the Cornell physics library, I can't find out the technical
details) the preferred reference frame is the one which is at rest
with respect to the source of the dominant gravitational field. The
most important consequence of this is that the speed of light is *not*
a constant in all reference frames; the speed varies in an
approximately linear fashion with the speed of the reference frame
relative to the dominant mass. Furthermore, in the non-preferred
reference frames, the speed of light is not isotropic; it is different
in the "forward" and "backward" directions (with respect to the relative
velocity of the reference frame.)
Secondly, according to Vince Cate, all terrestrial experiments of sufficient
accuracy have either failed to distinguish Beckmann's theory from Einstein's
or have supported Beckmann's theory.
Thus it seems that Beckmann has a theory which is in agreement with
experiment, and which contradicts Einstein. Vince points out that this
state of affairs calls for new experiments and perhaps a new
evaluation of Einstein's theory of relativity. I would like to add that
there are also the possibilities that (1) the experimental results are in
error (2) the results can be explained in terms of the standard theory.
(II) Beckmann's Theoretical Attacks on Relativity and its Defenders
Personally, as a former theoretical physicist, I found Beckmann's
theoretical arguments in this newsgroup absolutely appalling. To be
fair, the attacks on Beckmann were often just as bad (for example,
people did such silly things as forget that magnetic fields
classically don't affect stationary particles).
However, Beckmann is in a completely different situation: he hopes to
be the man to overthrow Einstein's theory, the most successful
physical theory ever. (Some people claim that QED claims this prize,
but I disagree: QED is wholly dependent on the correctness of special
relativity.) If Beckmann is right, he may become the most famous
physicist since Einstein, and his words will go down in the history
books: therefore he should make sure that he gets things right. In
contrast, most of the rest of us are just hobbyists when it comes to
physics, and we can be excused for making little mistakes.
Anyway, here are the points that I thought Beckmann was careless about:
(1) Comparing his theory with special relativity
Since special relativity explicitly excludes the consideration of
gravitational effects, and Beckmann's theory explicitly depends on
them, they are simply incomparable theories; they apply to completely
different situations. Beckmann *could* compare the two by, in some
sense, taking the limit for his theory as G (the gravitational
constant) goes to 0 (if that makes sense for his theory), but he never
did this. To criticize SR because it ignores gravitational effects is
ridiculous: it was never *meant* to describe them.
A fair comparison would have been between Beckmann's theory and
Einstein's *general* theory of relativity. Why did he not do this?
The experimental results Vince Cate discusses cannot possibly
contradict special relativity, since special relativity has nothing to
say about experiments in a gravitational field. However, they may
contradict general relativity.
(2) Attacking special relativity via the Biot-Savart law.
In modern electrodynamics (for example, see Jackson), the Biot-Savart
law is not considered to be a fundamental principle; it is an
approximate result which is derivable from Maxwell's equations in
special circumstances (namely, when the electric field is
time-independent). Beckmann claims that the Biot-Savart law is in
contradiction with both experiment and the principle of conservation
of momentum.
Once again, it is ridiculous for Beckmann to attack the Biot-Savart
law; it is more appropriate to attack the full Maxwell's equations. If
he did so, he would find that his arguments don't hold any water: it is
easy to show in general that Maxwell's equations, plus special relativity
obeys conservation of momentum---if one includes the momentum in the
electromagnetic field. The idea that electromagnetic fields carry momentum
did not originate with Einstein, and is well supported by experiment.
Beckmann never said that he disagreed with the result that fields
carry momentum, but nevertheless pooh-poohed the invocation of the
result to show that SR does not violate momentum conservation.
(3) Claiming that Special Relativity violates conservation of momentum,
which must then be "put in by hypothesis"
Theoretically, this makes absolutely no sense. It is easy to show that
for any relativistically covariant theory momentum and energy are
automatically conserved. Relativity unifies these two conservation
laws into a single law of conservation of 4-momentum.
(4) Making the analogy of the speed of light with the speed of sound
This is a completely bogus analogy. The very equations describing the
propagation of sound in air show that the speed of sound varies with
the air speed. In contrast, Maxwell's equations, if they are correct,
show that the speed of light is *independent* of the velocity of any
medium. It is certainly possible that Maxwell's equations are in
general incorrect; for instance, they may only apply in certain
reference frames. However, the equations for light and sound are so
different, and predict such different effects, that it is extremely
careless to treat them analogously without scrutinizing whether the
analogy makes any sense.
(5) Attacking SR for violating Newton's "equal and opposite reactions"
law
Beckmann gives the following example: ((A) and (B) are particles with
identical charges. (A) is stationary (in some frame) and (B) is moving
at speed v.)
(A)
------ (B) -----> (velocity v)
Using the Lorentz transformations, plus the fact that, by Maxwell's
equations, a stationary charged particle (with no magnetic moment)
generates only an electric field, and no magnetic field, one can show
that the force of (A) on (B) is not equal to the force of (B) on (A).
Thus Newton's third law is violated. However, Beckmann should know
that Newton's law only applies in the case of (a) "contact"
interactions, or (b) instantaneous action-at-a-distance. In the case
of electromagnetic interactions, there is a delay, due to the finite
speed of light, in the propagation of forces. To get conservation of
momentum to work out, it is necessary to include THE MOMENTUM OF THE
FIELD!
(6) Attacking Greg (Hennessy, I believe) for thinking there is a
first-order test of Special Relativity.
Beckmann claims that there is no difference in the Lorentz and
Galilean transformations to order in the frame velocity v. However,
this is simply incorrect! It is true for the transformation of
position; though:
Galilean:
x' = x - vt
Lorentzian:
x' = gamma(x - vt)
(where gamma = 1/sqr(1 - v^2/c^2))
Since to first order in v, gamma is equal to 1, it follows, as Beckmann says,
that there is no first order effect. However, Beckmann left out the
transformation of the *time* coordinates:
Galilean:
t' = t
Lorentzian:
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)
The difference between the two is *linear* in the velocity. Now, there
may be some argument to the effect that the relative times in different
frames is unobservable. However, Beckmann did not give any such argument:
he claimed that a freshman can tell from the equations that there is no
first order effect. That claim is both wrong and insulting.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, I want to assure everyone that I do not think that
Beckmann is stupid, and I certainly will admit the possibility that
Beckmann's theory may be right. However, if Beckmann had complaints
about the quality of the discussions in this newsgroup, he should have
started by improving the quality of his own contributions.
Daryl McCullough
(I have a Master's Degree...in Science!)
mcdo...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
> ...I scan the group occasionally and by now I reflexively
> ignore articles on relativity or on measurement problems in the
> quantum theory because most of the posters don't have a clue about
> the issues, much less interesting insights. I've noticed this
> since I was an undergraduate: what is it about those fields that
> attracts crackpot thinkers? And why are they so vocal? You rarely
> see loonies interested condensed matter theory.
Relativity and measurement problems are of "cosmological"
significance. Condensed matter theory is not obviously so. Also,
one seldom sees popularized explanations of renormalization group
theory to mislead people.
Speaking about clueless, I DO understand quantum measurement theory
and enough about condensed matter theory. But relativity (general
relativity of course) eludes me. Any serious suggestions? One thing
I would like to see is the general equations all written out in full,
not just for a non-rotating spherically symmetric system.
Doug McDonald
Vincent Cate
Daryl writes:
>Secondly, according to Vince Cate, all terrestrial experiments of sufficient
>accuracy have either failed to distinguish Beckmann's theory from Einstein's
>or have supported Beckmann's theory.
I did not go this far. I will say that the accelerated particle
experiments, clock experiments, and "purely optical" experiments that I
know of work with Beckmann's theory as well as relativity.
>(1) Comparing his theory with special relativity
>[...]
> To criticize SR because it ignores gravitational effects is
>ridiculous: it was never *meant* to describe them.
Nobody has ever criticized SR for ignoring gravity. Nobody has ever just
tried to compare Beckmann's theory to just special relativity. You are
being ridiculous.
If you think that in General Relativity the speed of light on the surface
of the Earth (my office say) is not isotropic to within 50 m/s please say
so. Other than claiming that in relativity the speed of light is the same
East to West as West to East, I can't imagine what you are referring to.
>(6) Attacking Greg (Hennessy, I believe) for thinking there is a
>first-order test of Special Relativity.
He did not attack Greg Hennessy. Hennessy is one of the people who have
been very reasonable through all of this.
The point is that in this paper, with several authors, after being
reviewed and published in Am J Phys, there is a very major error. The
whole paper is bogus because of this error. They were claiming a first
order test for ether and they do not have one. Given that anybody using
Fresnel's formula ought to know that to first order it is the same as the
relativistic addition of velocities, and that the lorentz transformations
for length and velocity are the same as as the galilean to first order, it
is really surprising that this paper ever got published. The lorentz
transformation for time has nothing to do with this paper.
The error in the paper was that they used the Fresnel formula for the
velocity of light as if it was the velocity of light relative to the
observer and not relative to an entrained non-rotating either, as Fresnel
used it. This also is an amazing error, to "refute" an ether theory by
using velocities of light relative to the observer, WOW! Nobody noticed
this?
The American Journal of Physics and authors of the paper (John Byl, Martin
Sanderse, and Walter van der Kamp) are responsibility for these errors,
not Greg. Does anyone know if the authors have been informed of their
error? Has Am. J. Phys ever published a correction?
The paper this is about is Am J. Phys 53(1) January 1985, page 43.
-- Vince
Victor G LeBlanc
>
>Speaking about clueless, I DO understand quantum measurement theory
>and enough about condensed matter theory. But relativity (general
>relativity of course) eludes me. Any serious suggestions? One thing
>I would like to see is the general equations all written out in full,
>not just for a non-rotating spherically symmetric system.
>
>Doug McDonald
R - 0.5Rg = 8pi T
ab ab ab
are the "general equations all written out in full" for any system. (:^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Victor G. LeBlanc "Two-faced! How DARE you call me that! /
/ Dept. of Applied Mathematics If I had two faces, do you think that /
/ University of Waterloo, I would be stupid enough to wear THIS /
/ Waterloo, Ont. Canada ONE???" /
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg S. Hennessy
#
#The American Journal of Physics and authors of the paper (John Byl, Martin
#Sanderse, and Walter van der Kamp) are responsibility for these errors,
#not Greg. Does anyone know if the authors have been informed of their
#error? Has Am. J. Phys ever published a correction?
#
#The paper this is about is Am J. Phys 53(1) January 1985, page 43.
Yes, sort of. A few issues later there was a "refutation" of the Byl
paper, but the refutation was done assuming SR, which makes it rather
pointless. I do not have my references handy, but essectialy the same
derivation made int , I think, Phys Lett A, which was refreenced in
the Byl paper. The Phys Lett A paper had a proper correction
published.
Patrick L Faith
I do think the quality of conversation sometimes suffers from a combative
writing mood. Though Beckmanns theories are on the opposite side of the
physics fringe than mine, I appreciated his viewpoint, enjoyed reading
what he said, and will miss his comments.
P L Faith
Wayne Throop
> Anyway, here are the points that I thought Beckmann was careless about:
> (1) Comparing his theory with special relativity
I agree that many of the above were sticking points with me also. But I
think Daryl is mistaking what Beckmann said about point 4. He was NOT
saying the cases were analogous, he was saying that one of the sketches
of an argument deriving the universality of the speed of light from what
one might philosophical grounds applied equally to sound. He was
criticizing an incomplete argument, not asserting a strong analogy. So,
it is unfair to lay this at his door.
On the other hand, I'd like to add two things to the list:
(7) The lack of application of his ideas to any case but direct optical
measurements of the speed of light in various directions relative to the
surface of the earth. Superficially, it seems that calculations on the
effect of this idea on the optics of various astronomical occurences
should lead quickly to a definitive test that would allow relatively
simple observations to distinguish between relativistic and Beckmann
expectations.
(8) The implied idea that the boundaries between domains of "dominant
mass" have zero thickness. This seems MOST unlikely (though it DOES get
rid of problems such as the presumably expected differential bending of
light of light coming past different "sides" of a rotating body, such as
a planet or the sun). Granted, Beckmann didn't strongly assert this: it
was an unchallenged implication of his reply to the question of how one
should account for the effects of multiple masses. But even if it isn't
what Beckmann meant, this general issue has been evaded.
I agree with Daryl that Beckmann is clearly not stupid or ill-informed
on this subject. Quite the reverse. He's done his "homework" and the
experiments he suggests are clearly in order (though one could argue
about the urgency). But... well "he started it first" seems small
justification for the sneering attitude of the replies to even the most
serious questioners.
(And one further question... wouldn't the calibration of optical
gyroscopes be precise enough to settle the issue, despite the fact that
such things might not be indexed as attempts to find a direction
dependance on the speed of light? Or am I just misremembering the
operating principles or precision of optical gyroscopes?)
--
Wayne Throop <backbone>!mcnc!rti!sheol!throopw or sheol!thr...@rti.rti.org
Doug McDonald
>In article <4490...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdo...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>
>>Speaking about clueless, I DO understand quantum measurement theory
>>and enough about condensed matter theory. But relativity (general
>>relativity of course) eludes me. Any serious suggestions? One thing
>>I would like to see is the general equations all written out in full,
>>not just for a non-rotating spherically symmetric system.
>>
>>Doug McDonald
>
> R - 0.5Rg = 8pi T
> ab ab ab
>
>are the "general equations all written out in full" for any system. (:^)
>
That is exactly what I DON'T want : I want explicit
differential equations all written out with NO vector or tensor
notation: ecah component x, y, z, t explicitly written out.
Doug McDonald
Victor G LeBlanc
This is the beautiful thing about tensor notation: it is independant of the
coordinate system used, while the partial differential equations are NOT.
Also, you need to know something about the particular system for which you
want to solve these equations in order to write T . This is because for many
ab
cases, T depends on the metric g EXPLICITLY (for example: perfect fluid
ab ab
source has T = mu u + p(g + u u).
ab a b ab a b
Since you are usually solvind the PDE's for the components of the metric, it
is EXTREMELY important that you know the form of the energy momentum tensor
before writing the equations and solving them.
This is why the only time that you have
seen the equations in component form was for special cases of solutions (i.e.
symmetrical sherical solutions). In these cases, a particular system of
coordinates is more appropriate than another for projecting the equations on
the coordinate frame.
Einstein believed that the laws of physics should be covariant (i.e. independantof all possible choices of coordinates). Since tensor relations are covariant,
the laws of physics must be expressable in the form of tensor relations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Victor G. LeBlanc "Why couldn't I have known you way /
/ Dept. of Applied Mathematics back when you were cheap and /
/ University of Waterloo, slutty?" - Sam Mallone /
/ Waterloo, Ont. Canada vgle...@violet.waterloo.edu /
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Coffin
> (4) Making the analogy of the speed of light with the speed of sound
> This is a completely bogus analogy.
This critisism is not quite fair and it certainly doesn't show that
Beckmann doesn't understand the difference between light and sound.
Someone---it doesn't matter who---made an argument about light. Beckmann
pointed out that the argument applied equally well to sound, yielding
a demonstrably false conclusion. The chain of inference was that since
the argument depended only on properties that are shared by light and
sound, and since it yielded false results when applied to sound, the
argument itself was faulty. (It is as if a complicated proof is
given concerning 4 x 4 matrices, which depends only on the fact that
they form a group. If the conclusion, applied to the group of
integers, yields a falsehood then there must be a flaw in the proof.)
--
Mike Coffin mi...@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858