Abraham Lorentz model of the electron
Bruce Harvey
Have you done the calculations??
Have you you got the book??
Do you know how accurately the co-eficients in Einstein's formular
m = m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
Have been determined??
In the Abraham Lorentz model of the electron, the energy content of the
electric and magnetic fields are calculated using contracted
co-ordinates.
The only references on my book shelf ar in Jackson P786 to 791 and J H
Jeans Mathematical theory of E and M P583 to 590.
Full accounts are in "The theory of Electrons" by H A Lorentz which was
translated by Dover Books in 1952 and Abraham's Electricity and
Magnetism translated from the German and published by Blackie in 1937.
But I have neither of these books.
The result is said by Jeans to be
Eelctric energy =
e^2/8a(((3c^2-v^2)/(c*v))*log((c+v)/c-v))-2)
Magnetic energy =
e^2/8a(((c^2+v^2)/(c*v))*log((c+v)/c-v))-2)
Total =
e^2/2a(((c/v)*log((c+v)/c-v))-1)
Has anyone done the intergration in ordinary co-ordinates to check the
validity of the result and got a copy of the calculations?
The total energy expands as aseries to
e^2/2a*(1 + 2/3 (v/c)^2 + 2/5 (v/c)^4 + 2/7 (v/c)^6 ...)
compared to Einstein's
m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
The Abraham Lorentz model integrations are very sensitive to the shape
of the charge. By choosing an elipsoid which is a sphere in the
contracted co-ordinates, Lorent avoids all the difficult maths.
Pro Einstein members of the relativity news group are keen to quote the
increase in mass with velocity as proof of relativity, but they usually
limit this to the name of an experiment without giving data.
I would be interested to know the limits of accuracy to which the terms
of the expansion of Einstein's series have been determined. Does anyone
have any information about this.
Regards Bruce.
--
Bruce Harvey, br...@bearsoft.powernet.co.uk
My web-site is "The Alternative Physics Site"
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/
Jim Carr
>
>Abraham-Lorentz model of the electron.
>Have you done the calculations??
>Have you you got the book??
I am familiar with both the Lorentz and Abraham models.
I would not hypenate the names as if you were describing a single
model, since they are different and distinquishable by experiment.
>Do you know how accurately the co-eficients in Einstein's formular
> m = m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
>Have been determined??
The correct formula would be E = (mc^2)*(1 + ...) in modern terms.
No one uses relativistic mass anymore.
Further, the kinematic region explored since WW II is such that
no one thinks of it as a power series expansion with unknown
coefficients. Current experiments at LEP2 at CERN run at an
energy of 94.5 GeV where the bracketed factor is 18491.5 (we
call it gamma) and (v/c) = 0.9999999999854. Timing around the
ring is known to the phase of the RF drive frequency, which is
352.21 MHz, corresponding to 31,320 times the frequency of the
beam in the ring. I don't know the phase sensitivity, but it
seems likely that they know the beam velocity equals c to 7
of those digits at this energy. I do know that the "tune" is
sensitive enough to measure the effect of the Moon's tides
on the ring dimensions.
The lower energy region around gamma = 10 is probably more
sensitive to the differences you are looking at, but you can
see how different the Abraham and Lorentz models are as regards
the beta at this energy. Also see the experiments below.
>Full accounts are in "The theory of Electrons" by H A Lorentz which was
>translated by Dover Books in 1952 ...
I don't think so. The book was written in English. ;-)
I have read the 1916 edition, which is the 2nd edition. The Dover
reprint that includes Einstein's papers only has a short article by
Lorentz from 1904; Theory of Electrons is much more complete.
> ... and Abraham's Electricity and
>Magnetism translated from the German and published by Blackie in 1937.
I have read his paper, the one cited by Lorentz, and Lorentz also
presents the results in his monograph.
>The result is said by Jeans to be
>Total = e^2/2a(((c/v)*log((c+v)/c-v))-1)
Lorentz works from the electromagnetic momentum, G, in eqn (63) and
that is not the same as this.
>Has anyone done the intergration in ordinary co-ordinates to check the
>validity of the result and got a copy of the calculations?
I have not. Rather an antique detail. Note that there is both
a transverse and longitudinal mass in the Lorentz version.
>The total energy expands as aseries to
>e^2/2a*(1 + 2/3 (v/c)^2 + 2/5 (v/c)^4 + 2/7 (v/c)^6 ...)
The formula for the transverse mass (what you seem to give here)
has a (2/5) in the first term according to Lorentz.
>compared to Einstein's
>m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
This is also Lorentz's formula, eqn (313), for the transverse mass.
Lorentz appeared to be rather disappointed that the data of Kaufmann
favored the Abraham formula rather than his own, in the original
text but includes a note (number 86) in the 1916 edition that
references the later experiments by Bucherer and others that
confirm his (and Einstein's formula).
All of those experiments were criticized by Zahn and Spees on
technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
as noted at the top.
>Pro Einstein members of the relativity news group are keen to quote the
>increase in mass with velocity as proof of relativity, but they usually
>limit this to the name of an experiment without giving data.
Those aware of how SR is done would talk about mass being invariant
and note the kinematic relationships between E and p and m that give
specific predictions for the relationship between kinetic energy
and speed. ;-) I don't know what you mean by "name of an experiment"
since the references have been given (I pulled the above from an
archive of some of my articles) and references to the literature
are also in the FAQ.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
ralph sansbury
Jim Carr wrote in message <7185jf$5vp$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>Bruce Harvey <br...@bearsoft.powernet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>Abraham-Lorentz model of the electron.
>>Have you done the calculations??
>>Have you you got the book??
>
> I am familiar with both the Lorentz and Abraham models.
>
> I would not hypenate the names as if you were describing a single
> model, since they are different and distinquishable by experiment.
>
>>Do you know how accurately the co-eficients in Einstein's formular
>> m = m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
>>Have been determined??
>
> The correct formula would be E = (mc^2)*(1 + ...) in modern terms.
> No one uses relativistic mass anymore.
Who says and what is his authority?
>
> Further, the kinematic region explored since WW II is such that
> no one
Who says etc and why do you use such awkward language like kinematic
region unless your
understanding of this is as awkward as your language?
thinks of it as a power series expansion with unknown
> coefficients. Current experiments at LEP2 at CERN run at an
> energy of 94.5 GeV where the bracketed factor is 18491.5 (we
> call it gamma) and (v/c) = 0.9999999999854. Timing around the
> ring is known to the phase of the RF drive frequency, which is
> 352.21 MHz, corresponding to 31,320 times the frequency of the
> beam in the ring. I don't know the phase sensitivity, but it
> seems likely that they know the beam velocity equals c to 7
> of those digits at this energy. I do know that the "tune" is
> sensitive enough to measure the effect of the Moon's tides
> on the ring dimensions.
The electron is split into several pieces at this energy so that the
results obtained do not
apply to the electron but rather to pieces of the electron and calculations
of energy assuming the mass of the electron are wrong.
>
>
> I have read his paper, the one cited by Lorentz, and Lorentz also
> presents the results in his monograph.
>
>>The result is said by Jeans to be
>>Total = e^2/2a(((c/v)*log((c+v)/c-v))-1)
>
> Lorentz works from the electromagnetic momentum, G, in eqn (63) and
> that is not the same as this.
>
>>Has anyone done the intergration in ordinary co-ordinates to check the
>>validity of the result and got a copy of the calculations?
>
> I have not. Rather an antique detail. Note that there is both
> a transverse and longitudinal mass in the Lorentz version.
>
>>The total energy expands as aseries to
>>e^2/2a*(1 + 2/3 (v/c)^2 + 2/5 (v/c)^4 + 2/7 (v/c)^6 ...)
>
> The formula for the transverse mass (what you seem to give here)
> has a (2/5) in the first term according to Lorentz.
>
>>compared to Einstein's
>>m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
>
> This is also Lorentz's formula, eqn (313), for the transverse mass.
>
> Lorentz appeared to be rather disappointed that the data of Kaufmann
> favored the Abraham formula rather than his own, in the original
> text but includes a note (number 86) in the 1916 edition that
> references the later experiments by Bucherer and others that
> confirm his (and Einstein's formula).
The experiment of Bucherer and others only confirm Einstein's formula
because they do not apply an electrostatic field at right angles to the
magnetic field
as you have been told many times and if you read the Bucherer article or any
of the others that cull from "your archives" you would know.
>
> All of those experiments were criticized by Zahn and Spees on
> technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
> 511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
>
> There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
> 32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
> 70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
> Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
> as noted at the top.
>
>
Which by not using strong electric field at right angles to a magnetic
field for a sufficient length of time
fail to replicate the Kaufmann experiment which you have also been told and
if you read your own archives you would know.
>Pro Einstein members of the relativity news group are keen to quote the
>>increase in mass with velocity as proof of relativity, but they usually
>>limit this to the name of an experiment without giving data.
>
The basic experiments are the Kaufmann experiments and they have not been
repeated. To say that they have been repeated when crucial conditions are
omitted is patently dishonest.
Bruce Harvey
<URL:mailto:j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
> Bruce Harvey <br...@bearsoft.powernet.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >Abraham-Lorentz model of the electron.
> >Have you done the calculations??
> >Have you you got the book??
>
> I am familiar with both the Lorentz and Abraham models.
>
> I would not hypenate the names as if you were describing a single
> model, since they are different and distinquishable by experiment.
>
> >Do you know how accurately the co-eficients in Einstein's formular
> > m = m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
> >Have been determined??
>
> The correct formula would be E = (mc^2)*(1 + ...) in modern terms.
> No one uses relativistic mass anymore.
>
> energy of 94.5 GeV where the bracketed factor is 18491.5 (we
> call it gamma) and (v/c) = 0.9999999999854. Timing around the
> ring is known to the phase of the RF drive frequency, which is
> 352.21 MHz, corresponding to 31,320 times the frequency of the
> beam in the ring. I don't know the phase sensitivity, but it
> seems likely that they know the beam velocity equals c to 7
> of those digits at this energy. I do know that the "tune" is
> sensitive enough to measure the effect of the Moon's tides
> on the ring dimensions.
>
> sensitive to the differences you are looking at, but you can
> see how different the Abraham and Lorentz models are as regards
> the beta at this energy. Also see the experiments below.
>
> >Full accounts are in "The theory of Electrons" by H A Lorentz which was
> >translated by Dover Books in 1952 ...
>
> I don't think so. The book was written in English. ;-)
>
> I have read the 1916 edition, which is the 2nd edition. The Dover
> reprint that includes Einstein's papers only has a short article by
> Lorentz from 1904; Theory of Electrons is much more complete.
>
> > ... and Abraham's Electricity and
> >Magnetism translated from the German and published by Blackie in 1937.
>
> presents the results in his monograph.
>
> >The result is said by Jeans to be
> >Total = e^2/2a(((c/v)*log((c+v)/c-v))-1)
>
> Lorentz works from the electromagnetic momentum, G, in eqn (63) and
> that is not the same as this.
>
> >Has anyone done the intergration in ordinary co-ordinates to check the
> >validity of the result and got a copy of the calculations?
>
> I have not. Rather an antique detail. Note that there is both
> a transverse and longitudinal mass in the Lorentz version.
>
> >The total energy expands as aseries to
> >e^2/2a*(1 + 2/3 (v/c)^2 + 2/5 (v/c)^4 + 2/7 (v/c)^6 ...)
>
> The formula for the transverse mass (what you seem to give here)
> has a (2/5) in the first term according to Lorentz.
>
> >compared to Einstein's
> >m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
>
> This is also Lorentz's formula, eqn (313), for the transverse mass.
>
> Lorentz appeared to be rather disappointed that the data of Kaufmann
> favored the Abraham formula rather than his own, in the original
> text but includes a note (number 86) in the 1916 edition that
> references the later experiments by Bucherer and others that
> confirm his (and Einstein's formula).
>
> technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
> 511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
>
> There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
> 32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
> 70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
> Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
> as noted at the top.
>
> >increase in mass with velocity as proof of relativity, but they usually
> >limit this to the name of an experiment without giving data.
>
> and note the kinematic relationships between E and p and m that give
> specific predictions for the relationship between kinetic energy
> and speed. ;-) I don't know what you mean by "name of an experiment"
> since the references have been given (I pulled the above from an
> archive of some of my articles) and references to the literature
> are also in the FAQ.
>
Since Jim answered this, I have written the following to him, but I
guess I must have the wrong e-mail address.
Hi Jim,
Thanks very much for your reply to this posting. I put it in the
particle ng at Stephen Wells's suggestion.
I found Lorentz's formulae after I posted the question. Jeans has it a
few pages further on in a section on electromagnetic mass.
I have located a copy of The Theory of Electrons, .. in a local
university library which admits the public and it available from the
states by mail order.
The Cern details confirm the correctness of the gamma*m*c^2 formula.
One of the things which puzzeled me was the rational for assuming that
the suface integral of E.dA was limited to e/epsilon. Searle in his 1896
paper thinks that the motion of the magnetic field will result in an
induced electric field polarising space so that there is extra charge
resulting from the displacement current. Thinking in Lorentz's terms
of a charge moving through the aether, even without Searle, the
substitution of v d/dx for d/dt into del^2(E) = epsilon*mu*d2(E)/dt^2 is
going to imply that the same machanism which allows an electromagnetic
wave to continually regenerate itself is going to increase the
compontent of any moving electric field perpendicular to its velocity by
a factor gamma.
I developed a theory similar to the Lorentz model several years ago, but
only refered to the relativistic increase in passing as something which
I understood Lorentz to have done, but could find no reference to it.
The significant thing about this theory of mine is that it actually gets
the the inductive process by which the inertial force is generated
correct. But its not yet consistent with the gamma and gamma cubed of
Lorentz's transverse and longitudinal mass.
I am at present working on trying to tie some of the ideas behind
various theories of mine together into a new form of the Lorentz
Poincare theory. I won't bore you the details of that. What I am
interested in making sure that I understand the physics of the situation
according to relativity correctly.
I get confused by the way in which physics is presented as isolated
models which can at times contradict one another. Taking Jackson as an
example because he is oft quoted as being the ultimate authority. We
find a conventional classical theory of electricity and magentism
presented in the first ten chapters. Then he goes relativistic and I
have to throw away the nice clean concepts of the first part of the book
and start thinking about elecromagnetic fields and realising that the
separation into E and B depends on my velocity as an observer.
The nice clean concept which I had formed of a magnetic field was that
it had lines of flux which had position in space relive to the paths of
the electrons generating it. Then we discover in 11.10 that the magnetic
field surrounding a moving charge is simply the result of observing its
electric field while in relative motion to the charge.
Back in 1905, I could have adopted a Maxwell-Lorentz-Poincare
interpritation and said that the charge moves through the aether
generating a magnetic field which is statioary in the aether, but grows
in strength and then deminishes as the charge goes past. An observer in
motion through the aether will observe both the electric field and the
magnetic field as changed by Lorentz transfors.
But Einstein's view that the identification of the "stationary frame" is
superfluous seems to rob the magnetc field of its locus in the aether
and in so doing robs it of its substance and changes into an artifact of
observation.
If I have a magnetic field produced by current through a solenoid
without a core, then the locus of that magnetic field is clealy defined
by the locus of the solenoid in all but its angular position about
their axis of symmetry. (Presumably, that is fixed relative to the stars
and rotation of the coil about its axis does not rotate the magnetic
field, or is it?) If the magnetic field has a locus, then I can still
conceptualise it as having a real form, the expression of whch is the
fact that it contains energy. Experimentally I know it contains energy
because my attempts to suddenly switch of the current result in that
energy manifesting itself in an arc across a switch or blown
transistors.
When we come to consider a charge such as an electron, the question
arises as to whether or not the motion of the charge generates a
magnetic field whch surrounds it and travels along with it. If it does,
then it has an energy content. Relativity seems to be saying that there
is no real magnetic field surrounding the charge because if we travelled
along beside it, all we would measure a normal electric field and no
magnetic field. This would make a nonsense of Lorentz's model of the
electron.
Modern theory has the electron with zero radius and just ignores the
infinite energy of its electric field by saying the magic word
"renormalisation" If one puts together the equations for the electric
and magnetic field predicted by the LT for a moving charge (Jackson
11,152), with the equations for the energy density of electric and
magnetic fields, the increase in energy by a factor would seem to act on
the whole of the infinite energy. Is there a relativistic theory of
renormalisation to compnesate for this?
Any comments would be very much apreciated. Meanwhile I am off to look
at that 1909 copy of The Theory of Electrons I locted.
_______________________________
The best way to get hold of a personal copy of a book is to spend all
Saturday morning at a university library photocopying it!!!!! This is
called expoitation of sod's law. By Tuesday, I had located a copy at
Mark Westwood books in Hay on Wye and it arived on Friday.
You can see why Jeans gives Abraham's formulea instead of Lorentz's from
the fact that Lorentz deals with the subject twice in the book giving
just Abraham's work the first time.
If only Lorentz had had access to the 3 quark theory of neucleons, the
history of physics might have been very different.
I never really understood the Lorentz Poincare theory of relativity from
Whitaker, but reading Lorentz is a different matter. He explains thing
very clearly.
Anyway, right now, I would like some answers to the questions posed in
the email which Jim did not get.
Regards Bruce
ralph sansbury
ralph sansbury wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Abraham-Lorentz model of the electron.
>>>Have you done the calculations??
>>>Have you you got the book??
>>
>> I am familiar with both the Lorentz and Abraham models.
>>
>> I would not hypenate the names as if you were describing a single
>> model, since they are different and distinquishable by experiment.
>>
>>>Do you know how accurately the co-eficients in Einstein's formular
>>> m = m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
>>>Have been determined??
>>
>> The correct formula would be E = (mc^2)*(1 + ...) in modern terms.
>> No one uses relativistic mass anymore.
>
>> Further, the kinematic region explored since WW II is such that
>> no one thinks of it as a power series expansion with unknown
>> coefficients. Current experiments at LEP2 at CERN run at an
>> energy of 94.5 GeV where the bracketed factor is 18491.5 (we
>> call it gamma) and (v/c) = 0.9999999999854. Timing around the
>> ring is known to the phase of the RF drive frequency, which is
>> 352.21 MHz, corresponding to 31,320 times the frequency of the
>> beam in the ring. I don't know the phase sensitivity, but it
>> seems likely that they know the beam velocity equals c to 7
>> of those digits at this energy. I do know that the "tune" is
>> sensitive enough to measure the effect of the Moon's tides
>> on the ring dimensions.
>
1)The electron is split into several pieces at this energy so that the
results obtained do not
apply to the electron but rather to pieces of the electron and calculations
of energy assuming the mass of the electron are wrong.
2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this way
as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article you
mention
cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
prediction because
the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different velocities
is not shown.
>>
>>
>> I have read his paper, the one cited by Lorentz, and Lorentz also
>> presents the results in his monograph.
>>
>>>The result is said by Jeans to be
>>>Total = e^2/2a(((c/v)*log((c+v)/c-v))-1)
>>
>> Lorentz works from the electromagnetic momentum, G, in eqn (63) and
>> that is not the same as this.
>>
>>>Has anyone done the intergration in ordinary co-ordinates to check the
>>>validity of the result and got a copy of the calculations?
>>
>> I have not. Rather an antique detail. Note that there is both
>> a transverse and longitudinal mass in the Lorentz version.
>>
>>>The total energy expands as aseries to
>>>e^2/2a*(1 + 2/3 (v/c)^2 + 2/5 (v/c)^4 + 2/7 (v/c)^6 ...)
>>
>> The formula for the transverse mass (what you seem to give here)
>> has a (2/5) in the first term according to Lorentz.
>>
>>>compared to Einstein's
>>>m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
>>
>> This is also Lorentz's formula, eqn (313), for the transverse mass.
>>
>> Lorentz appeared to be rather disappointed that the data of Kaufmann
>> favored the Abraham formula rather than his own, in the original
>> text but includes a note (number 86) in the 1916 edition that
>> references the later experiments by Bucherer and others that
>> confirm his (and Einstein's formula).
>
>The experiment of Bucherer and others only confirm Einstein's formula
>because they do not apply an electrostatic field at right angles to the
>magnetic field
>as you have been told many times and if you read the Bucherer article or
any
>of the others that cull from "your archives" you would know.
>>
>> All of those experiments were criticized by Zahn and Spees on
>> technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
>> 511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
>>
>> There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
>> 32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
>> 70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
>> Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
>> as noted at the top.
>>
>>
> Which by not using strong electric field at right angles to a magnetic
>field for a sufficient length of time and then to show the difference in
electron trajcetories
>fail to replicate the Kaufmann experiment which you have also been told and
>if you read your own archives you would know.
>
>
>>Pro Einstein members of the relativity news group are keen to quote the
>>>increase in mass with velocity as proof of relativity, but they usually
>>>limit this to the name of an experiment without giving data.
>>
>The basic experiments are the Kaufmann experiments and they have not been
>repeated. To say that they have been repeated when crucial conditions are
>omitted is patently dishonest.
The Walz et al experiment does not show the trajectory of electrons of
different velocities but simply measures the change in temperature of water
through which some of the initial beam of electrons some of which may follow
the bends of the apparatus travel as well as the magnitude of the current
associated with this beam just before it enters the water.
The Bertozzi experiment shows what one would expect from the Abraham
theory or the Einstein Lorentz theory but does not provide the crossed
electric and magnetiic field which would show a difference between the two
theories.
Jim Carr
| > m = m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
| >Have been determined??
|
| The correct formula would be E = (mc^2)*(1 + ...) in modern terms.
| No one uses relativistic mass anymore.
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
> Who says and what is his authority?
I says. Open the Physical Review D and look for a counter example
if you don't believe me. I await your posting of one.
As for argument from authority: Read the kinematics section of the
PDG summary of current practice across the world as a typical example.
Since this is a particle physics newsgroup, that should be enough of
a standard to follow. I would also point to the classical mechanics
text of Marion and Thornton, Hagedorn's decades old monograph on
Relativistic Kinematics, and many other books and textbooks.
| Further, the kinematic region explored since WW II is such that
| no one
>Who says etc and why do you use such awkward language like kinematic
>region unless your understanding of this is as awkward as your language?
Kinematic region is not awkward, it is precise. We use that all
the time to refer to some region of p and E.
Here the authorities are easy. A subset of the more significant
milestones are in the Relativity FAQ, and the journals are filled
with examples on a daily basis. Among those are the now-ancient
Zahn and Spees paper and a variety of more recent tests, including
the functioning of relativistic technologies.
| >compared to Einstein's
| >m0*(1+ 1/2 (v/c)^2 + 3/8 (v/c)^4 + 5/16 (v/c)^6 ...)
|
| This is also Lorentz's formula, eqn (313), for the transverse mass.
|
| Lorentz appeared to be rather disappointed that the data of Kaufmann
| favored the Abraham formula rather than his own, in the original
| text but includes a note (number 86) in the 1916 edition that
| references the later experiments by Bucherer and others that
| confirm his (and Einstein's formula).
>The experiment of Bucherer and others only confirm Einstein's formula
>because they do not apply an electrostatic field at right angles to the
>magnetic field
>as you have been told many times and if you read the Bucherer article or any
>of the others that cull from "your archives" you would know.
That is a self-consistent test, since all of the experiments
assume Maxwell's equations are correct and that they have
certain covariance properties defined by the competing theories.
It is not the case that the Abraham model produces a different
prediction than the Einstein-Lorentz transforms or QED *only*
in the case you look at. They also differ in the other cases.
Those cases falsify it. Read Zahn and Spees. They show this
clearly in a graph in their paper.
| All of those experiments were criticized by Zahn and Spees on
| technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
| 511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
|
| There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
| 32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
| 70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
| Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
| as noted at the top.
>Which by not using strong electric field at right angles to a magnetic
>field for a sufficient length of time
>fail to replicate the Kaufmann experiment which you have also been told and
>if you read your own archives you would know.
Irrelevant, since you can test Abraham in other cases.
Any of those cases serve to falsify it.
More importantly, the criticism of Zahn and Spees invalidates the only
experimental results you want to talk about -- and I notice you are now
slipping some additional caveats into your description of the experiment
that were not there initially. You must have read the paper and noticed
that it invalidates your theory.
ralph sansbury
Jim Carr wrote in message <727uca$3lk$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>Jim Carr wrote:
>|
>| Further, the kinematic region explored since WW II is such that
>| no one
>
>>Who says etc and why do you use such awkward language like kinematic
>>region unless your understanding of this is as awkward as your language?
>
> the time to refer to some region of p and E.
>
So why not say this and while you are at it admit that this region does
not include crossed electric and magnetic fields so that no test is made of
the Abraham model which applies to such fields
> Here the authorities are easy. A subset of the more significant
> milestones are in the Relativity FAQ, and the journals are filled
> with examples on a daily basis. Among those are the now-ancient
> Zahn and Spees paper and a variety of more recent tests, including
> the functioning of relativistic technologies.
>
1)The electron is split into several pieces at the energies of the
accelerators you discuss so that the
>results obtained do not
>apply to the electron but rather to pieces of the electron and calculations
>of energy assuming the mass of the electron are wrong.
>
>
>2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this way
>as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article you
>mention
>cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
>prediction because
>the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different velocities
>is not shown.
>>>
>>The experiment of Bucherer and others only confirm Einstein's formula
>>because they do not apply an electrostatic field at right angles to the
>>magnetic field
>>as you have been told many times and if you read the Bucherer article or
>any
>>of the others that cull from "your archives" you would know.
>>>
>>> All of those experiments were criticized by Zahn and Spees on
>>> technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
>>> 511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
>>>
>>> There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
>>> 32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
>>> 70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
>>> Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
>>> as noted at the top.
>>>
>>>
>> Which by not using strong electric field at right angles to a magnetic
>>field for a sufficient length of time and then to show the difference in
>electron trajcetories
>>fail to replicate the Kaufmann experiment which you have also been told
and
>>if you read your own archives you would know.
>>
>>
>>>Pro Einstein members of the relativity news group are keen to quote the
>>>>increase in mass with velocity as proof of relativity, but they usually
>>>>limit this to the name of an experiment without giving data.
>>>
>>The basic experiments are the Kaufmann experiments and they have not been
>>repeated. To say that they have been repeated when crucial conditions are
>>omitted is patently dishonest.
>
>
> The Walz et al experiment does not show the trajectory of electrons of
>different velocities but simply measures the change in temperature of water
>through which some of the initial beam of electrons some of which may
follow
>the bends of the apparatus travel as well as the magnitude of the current
>associated with this beam just before it enters the water.
> The Bertozzi experiment shows what one would expect from the Abraham
>theory or the Einstein Lorentz theory but does not provide the crossed
>electric and magnetiic field which would show a difference between the two
>theories.
>
>
>snip
>
>>
>| This is also Lorentz's formula, eqn (313), for the transverse mass.
>|
>| Lorentz appeared to be rather disappointed that the data of Kaufmann
>| favored the Abraham formula rather than his own, in the original
>| text but includes a note (number 86) in the 1916 edition that
>| references the later experiments by Bucherer and others that
>| confirm his (and Einstein's formula).
>
>>The experiment of Bucherer and others only confirm Einstein's formula
>>because they do not apply an electrostatic field at right angles to the
>>magnetic field
>>as you have been told many times and if you read the Bucherer article or
any
>>of the others that cull from "your archives" you would know.
>
> That is a self-consistent test, since all of the experiments
> assume Maxwell's equations are correct and that they have
> certain covariance properties defined by the competing theories.
>
I do no think that this answers the question. We are not talking about
assumptions but about adequate experiments.
> It is not the case that the Abraham model produces a different
> prediction than the Einstein-Lorentz transforms or QED *only*
> in the case you look at. They also differ in the other cases.
>
> Those cases falsify it. Read Zahn and Spees. They show this
> clearly in a graph in their paper.
No if you read the paper by Zahn and Spees carefully you will see that
these other cases leave out the crossed electric and magnetic fields at
high velocities so that the contradiction of the Einstein Lorentz theory
(and every thing based on this theory) is not shown and the Abraham model
does not apply.
>
>| All of those experiments were criticized by Zahn and Spees on
>| technical grounds [Phys. Rev. 53, 357 (1938) and Phys. Rev. 53,
>| 511 (1938)] and repeated by them [Phys. Rev. 53, 365 (1938)].
>
The criticism is that more such experiments were necessary if one was going
to able to decide that the EL theory was correct or that the Abraham theory
was correct.
|
>| There are also the later experiments by W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys.
>| 32, 551 (1964); W.W. Buechner and R.J. van de Graaff, Phys. Rev.
>| 70, 174 (1946); D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys.
>| Rev. A 29, 2110 (1984); plus the proper functioning of synchrotrons
>| as noted at the top.
>
>>Which by not using strong electric field at right angles to a magnetic
>>field over a distance as great as was done in the Kaufmann experiment
>>fail to replicate the Kaufmann experiment which you have also been told
and
>>if you read your own archives you would know.
>
> Irrelevant, since you can test Abraham in other cases.
>
> Any of those cases serve to falsify it.
>
You may be able to test and falsify other statements of Abraham but you
cannot test the statements regarding the effect of crossed electrostatic and
magnetic fields.
More importantly, the criticism of Zahn and Spees invalidates the only
> experimental results you want to talk about -- and I notice you are now
> slipping some additional caveats into your description of the experiment
> that were not there initially. You must have read the paper and noticed
> that it invalidates your theory.
>--
No caveats just the facts and the facts in the papers you describe do
not test the effect of crossed electrostatic and magnetic fields.
If such a test had been carried out since 1938 then we would know what
SR has to say about the increase of mass with velocity or the conversion of
energy into mass at high velocities is correct or not.
To date no such test has been done and it should be done. Dont you
agree?
Jim Carr
>
>1)The electron is split into several pieces at this energy [94.5 GeV] ...
That must hurt. How many pieces, Ralph? Has anyone counted them?
> ... so that the results obtained do not
>apply to the electron but rather to pieces of the electron and calculations
>of energy assuming the mass of the electron are wrong.
Most amusing.
>2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this way
>as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article you
>mention
>cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
>prediction because
>the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different velocities
>is not shown.
Incorrect. The "relativistic mass" formulae are different.
And neither of them "split" the electron, by the way....
--
Jim Carr
>
>I have located a copy of The Theory of Electrons, .. in a local
>university library which admits the public and it available from the
>states by mail order.
If you can find the 2nd edition, do so. It contains Lorentz's
remarks about Einstein's theory in some nicely detailed notes
that were written in 1915.
>One of the things which puzzeled me was the rational for assuming that
>the suface integral of E.dA was limited to e/epsilon.
Those are always interesting questions. I don't know of any
historical study of why Lorentz did what he did. Probably a
bit of a backwater of research.
>I get confused by the way in which physics is presented as isolated
>models which can at times contradict one another.
That is how it developed!
ralph sansbury
Jim Carr wrote in message <72taud$oke$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>
>>1)The electron is split into several pieces at this energy [94.5 GeV] ...
>
> That must hurt. How many pieces, Ralph? Has anyone counted them?
The evidence is given in www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book98.PDF
>
> ... so that the results obtained do not
>>apply to the electron but rather to pieces of the electron and
calculations
>>of energy assuming the mass of the electron are wrong.
>
> Most amusing.
>
>>2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this way
>>as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article you
>>mention
>>cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
>>prediction because
>>the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
velocities
>>is not shown.
>
> Incorrect. The "relativistic mass" formulae are different.
>
Again you snip the context. I said that the effect of crossed electric
and magnetic fields for an applied magnetic field and not just the magnetic
field of the earth were not shown
Let me quote a previous message which also made this point and which you
have not answered.
Jim Carr wrote in message <725m03$crr$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>
>The point of the article and my comments is that there is data that says
the
>>apparent increase in mass in the energy formula of Einstein is due a
change
>>in the magnetic responsiveness of the fast moving electron at speeds very
>>near the speed of light.
>
> Then how do you explain the kinematics, which have nothing to
> do with magnetism?
>
If by kinematics you mean time of flight measurements in the earth's
magnetic field then the apparent increase of mass or unexpected decrease in
the rate of increase of velocity at higher forces and energies produced by
the accelerator then I disagree with you for obvious reasons.
The results in Kaufmann type experiments with stronger magnetic fields
and attempts to measure the different effects of the crossed electrostatic
and magnetic fields indicate different values of the transverse and
longitudinal mass than predicted by Lorentz and Einstein.
B ut as Zahn and Spees said in 1938 one could not make a definite
evaluation between the Kaufmann Abraham indication and formula and the
Lorentz and Einstein formula. More data and more accurate date were needed.
And here we are sixty years later and no such data has been forthcoming.
Yes there have been other experiments but none which would permit and
accurate determination of the electrostatic and magnetic effects at high
velocities around .1c plus or minus .5c.
Jim Carr
|
| "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| >as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article you
| >mention
| >cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
| >prediction because
| >the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
| >velocities is not shown.
|
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
>Again you snip the context. I said that the effect of crossed electric
>and magnetic fields for an applied magnetic field and not just the magnetic
>field of the earth were not shown
That is because the context is not important. My point is that
*other* experiments falsify that theory. If it is wrong, there
is no reason to worry about it further.
ralph sansbury
Jim Carr wrote in message <744erp$k46$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>Jim Carr wrote in message <72taud$oke$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>|
>| "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>| >as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article
you
>| >mention
>| >cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
>| >prediction because
>| >the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
>| >velocities is not shown.
>|
>
What does this mean? The Abraham formula and the Lorentz relativistic
formula are different formulas. The Bertozzi experiment is different from
the Kaufmann experiment and so the results of the Bertozzi experiment which
do not control for the same effects as the Kaufmann experiment cannot be
said to show that the Lorentz formula is more accurate than the Abraham
formula when the possible effects of a crossed electric and magnetic field
are taken into account.
>"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>
>>Again you snip the context. I said that the effect of crossed electric
>>and magnetic fields for an applied magnetic field and not just the
magnetic
>>field of the earth were not shown
>
> That is because the context is not important.
You have to show this with an experiment.
My point is that
> *other* experiments falsify that theory. If it is wrong, there
> is no reason to worry about it further.
>
What theory What other experiments. How could they if they do not control
for
the factors controlled for in the Kaufmann experiment?
>--
>
Jim Carr
|
| Jim Carr wrote in message <72taud$oke$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
| |
| | "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| | >2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this way
| | >as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article
| | >you mention
| | >cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
| | >prediction because
| | >the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
| | >velocities is not shown.
| |
| | Incorrect. The "relativistic mass" formulae are different.
In article <4BW92.489$QQ3.7...@newshog.newsread.com>
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
>What does this mean? The Abraham formula and the Lorentz relativistic
>formula are different formulas.
That is what it means.
Hence any experiment that is sensitive to that difference can
test which one is better.
>The Bertozzi experiment is different from
>the Kaufmann experiment and so the results of the Bertozzi experiment which
>do not control for the same effects as the Kaufmann experiment cannot be
>said to show that the Lorentz formula is more accurate than the Abraham
>formula when the possible effects of a crossed electric and magnetic field
>are taken into account.
Irrelevant, if the Kaufmann experiment is flawed and the Bertozzi
(or Zahn and Spees) experiment controls for other effects and makes
a strong test of some *other* prediction of the two equations.
If the Abraham equations are falsified by one experiment, it only
becomes interesting if some other experiment says the Lorentz
equations are wrong. In the current situation, the prediction of
the Abraham formula is falsified and the Kaufmann experiment is
not of high enough quality to decide any issue.
ralph sansbury
Jim Carr wrote in message <7598ct$o8k$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>Jim Carr wrote in message <744erp$k46$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>|
>| Jim Carr wrote in message <72taud$oke$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>| |
>| | "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>| | >2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this
way
>| | >as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article
>| | >you mention
>| | >cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
>| | >prediction because
>| | >the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
>| | >velocities is not shown.
>| |
>| | Incorrect. The "relativistic mass" formulae are different.
>
>In article <4BW92.489$QQ3.7...@newshog.newsread.com>
>"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>The Bertozzi experiment is different from
>>the Kaufmann experiment and so the results of the Bertozzi experiment
which
>>do not control for the same effects as the Kaufmann experiment cannot be
>>said to show that the Lorentz formula is more accurate than the Abraham
>>formula when the possible effects of a crossed electric and magnetic field
>>are taken into account.
>
> Irrelevant, if the Kaufmann experiment is flawed and the Bertozzi
> (or Zahn and Spees) experiment controls for other effects
The Bertozzi experiment is flawed because it does not control for variations
in the magnetic field and their effect on the movement of the accelerated
electrons.
The Kaufmann experiment is not flawed unless you have other reasons for
dismissing the notion that mass is partly electromagnetic. In this case you
might then say there are not enough data points in Kaufmann's experiment to
show the superiority of the Abraham formula beyond the .99 level of
significance.
> If the Abraham equations are falsified by one experiment, it only
> becomes interesting if some other experiment says the Lorentz
> equations are wrong. In the current situation, the prediction of
> the Abraham formula is falsified and the Kaufmann experiment is
> not of high enough quality to decide any issue.
>
The Abraham formula is not falsified. It is not applicable experiments
which do not have the same conditions applied to the electrons or
experiments in which the electrons are not moving above .5c..
The Kaufmann experiment is of high enough quality although better
vacuums and more accurate analysis of the photographic emulsion are possible
now. Also the stability and or measurement over time of the applied
magnetic field might be improved now.
The problem with the Kaufmann experiment was not quality but quantity.
More data points are needed.
Ralph Sansbury http://bestweb.net/~sansbury
Jim Carr
... relativity newsgroup added with followups there ...
Jim Carr wrote in message <7598ct$o8k$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
|
| Jim Carr wrote in message <744erp$k46$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
| |Jim Carr wrote in message <72taud$oke$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
| ||
| || "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| || >2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this way
| || >as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi article
| || >you mention
| || >cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the Abraham
| || >prediction because
| || >the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
| || >velocities is not shown.
| ||
| || Incorrect. The "relativistic mass" formulae are different.
|
| In article <4BW92.489$QQ3.7...@newshog.newsread.com>
| "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| >The Bertozzi experiment is different from
| >the Kaufmann experiment and so the results of the Bertozzi experiment which
| >do not control for the same effects as the Kaufmann experiment cannot be
| >said to show that the Lorentz formula is more accurate than the Abraham
| >formula when the possible effects of a crossed electric and magnetic field
| >are taken into account.
|
| Irrelevant, if the Kaufmann experiment is flawed and the Bertozzi
| (or Zahn and Spees) experiment controls for other effects
In article <6g9e2.590$LM4.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
>The Bertozzi experiment is flawed because it does not control for variations
>in the magnetic field and their effect on the movement of the accelerated
>electrons.
You first need to calculate the magnitude of the effect of the
earth's magnetic field in the three alternative models. A half
a gauss has zip effect.
> The Kaufmann experiment is not flawed unless you have other reasons for
>dismissing the notion that mass is partly electromagnetic.
I only have the analysis by Zahn and Spees cited elsewhere, which
is pretty clear on how and why the optics were bad.
| If the Abraham equations are falsified by one experiment, it only
| becomes interesting if some other experiment says the Lorentz
| equations are wrong. In the current situation, the prediction of
| the Abraham formula is falsified and the Kaufmann experiment is
| not of high enough quality to decide any issue.
> The Abraham formula is not falsified.
That is not what you said elsewhere.
>It is not applicable experiments
>which do not have the same conditions applied to the electrons or
>experiments in which the electrons are not moving above .5c..
Not so, since it gives a power series that works just fine
in many different cases.
ralph sansbury
ralph sansbury wrote in message ...
>
>
>Jim Carr wrote in message <767729$e9q$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>
>> ... relativity newsgroup added with followups there ...
>>
>>
>>Jim Carr wrote in message <7598ct$o8k$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>|
>>| Jim Carr wrote in message <744erp$k46$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>| |Jim Carr wrote in message <72taud$oke$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>| ||
>>| || "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>| || >2) The measurements of the speed of the electron accelerated in this
>way
>>| || >as in the time of flight measurment described in the Bertozzi
article
>>| || >you mention
>>| || >cannot possibly show the difference between the Lorentz vs the
>Abraham
>>| || >prediction because
>>| || >the effect of crossed electric and magnetic fields for different
>>| || >velocities is not shown.
>>| ||
>>| || Incorrect. The "relativistic mass" formulae are different.
>>|
>>|
to
>a large range of velocities under these conditions. The Lorentz formula
does
>not fit as well under these conditions and when a large range of velocities
>is observed.
> In article <4BW92.489$QQ3.7...@newshog.newsread.com>
>>| "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>| >The Bertozzi experiment is different from
>>| >the Kaufmann experiment and so the results of the Bertozzi experiment
>which
>>| >do not control for the same effects as the Kaufmann experiment cannot
be
>>| >said to show that the Lorentz formula is more accurate than the Abraham
>>| >formula when the possible effects of a crossed electric and magnetic
>field
>>| >are taken into account.
>>|
>>| Irrelevant, if the Kaufmann experiment is flawed and the Bertozzi
>>| (or Zahn and Spees) experiment controls for other effects
>>
>>In article <6g9e2.590$LM4.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
>>"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>>>
>>>The Bertozzi experiment is flawed because it does not control for
>variations
>>>in the magnetic field and their effect on the movement of the accelerated
>>>electrons.
>>
>> You first need to calculate the magnitude of the effect of the
>> earth's magnetic field in the three alternative models. A half
>> a gauss has zip effect.
>>
>very high speed electrons of zip mass..
>
>>> The Kaufmann experiment is not flawed unless you have other reasons for
>>>dismissing the notion that mass is partly electromagnetic.
>>
>> I only have the analysis by Zahn and Spees cited elsewhere, which
>> is pretty clear on how and why the optics were bad.
>>
>>
precise
>if you were willing to look at a smaller number of possible velocities over
>a smaller range. But of course the formula describing these results applies
>only to this smaller range.
>
>| If the Abraham equations are falsified by one experiment, it only
>>| becomes interesting if some other experiment says the Lorentz
>>| equations are wrong. In the current situation, the prediction of
>>| the Abraham formula is falsified and the Kaufmann experiment is
>>| not of high enough quality to decide any issue.
>>
>>> The Abraham formula is not falsified.
>>
>> That is not what you said elsewhere.
>>>It is not applicable experiments
>>>which do not have the same conditions applied to the electrons or
>>>experiments in which the electrons are not moving above .5c..
>>
>> Not so, since it gives a power series that works just fine
>> in many different cases.
>>
>
>experimental method can be compared to those obtained by Kaufmann but
>again they do not predict as well as the Abraham formula.
Jim Carr
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
This is a copy of an article I already replied to in sci.physics.relativity.
See that reply for my comments.