Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity
William
dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show
that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the
farfield of the source.
Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s
theory of special relativity theory is based, relativity theory is
reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is
dependent on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or
farfield propagating EM fields.
In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the
coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the
gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula
indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield.
Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether near-field
or far-field propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is
proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by
the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and
time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.
A paper arguing this proposal is available for download at:
http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/walker.pdf
William D. Walker
Sam Wormley
> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
> only become independent in the farfield.
You are mistaken.
Sue...
Your derivations seem generally along these lines:
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
You should check the date of:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my
whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
is false. " - Albert E. Einstein
Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the
1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Sue...
Sue...
Sam... You are a parrot.
Sue...
Androcles
"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
> only become independent in the farfield.
Vague and false. What is far and what is near?
The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the
source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".
ca314159
When you are talking about the nearfield propagation,
are you still talking about the propagation in a free-space vacuum?
William
- yes, I am talking about the propagation of EM fields in vacuum -
I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.
Not only do the EM fields start out faster than light, but the speed of
the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source. Both of
these findings are incompatible with Einstein relativity.
William
You need to read the paper for specifics. Nearfield refers to distances
a lot less than the farfield wavelength of the propagating field, and
farfield refers to distances a lot farther than the farfield wavelength
of the propagating field. Note that I refer to farfield wavelength
because the wavelength is larger in the nearfield than in the farfield
and only becomes relativly constant as the field propagates into the
farfield.
William
> Your derivations seem generally along these lines:
> << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
> the relative strength of electric and magnetic
> fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
Yes. But the main diffence is that I analyze the speed of the
propagating field components specifically when the source or observation
point is moving.
>
> You should check the date of:
> "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
> speed of the light source, then my
> whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
> is false. " - Albert E. Einstein
Do you know the date? I have not come across it yet.
>
> Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the
> 1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.
>
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/
>
> Sue...
>
Of course he had a long time to think about it by then. But he was not
aware of the velocity dependency of the fields near the source or that
the fields were superluminal there. This changes things a lot!
Sue...
> Thanks for the interesting websites! I will look at them more closely.
>
> > Your derivations seem generally along these lines:
> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic
> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
> > Formerly:http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
>
> Yes. But the main diffence is that I analyze the speed of the
> propagating field components specifically when the source or observation
> point is moving.
>
>
>
> > You should check the date of:
> > "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
> > speed of the light source, then my
> > whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
> > is false. " - Albert E. Einstein
>
> Do you know the date? I have not come across it yet.
>
>
>
> > Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the
> > 1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.
>
> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/
>
> > Sue...
>
> Of course he had a long time to think about it by then. But he was not
> aware of the velocity dependency of the fields near the source or that
> the fields were superluminal there. This changes things a lot!
I have to question your use of the term superluminal in the nearfield.
Something pre-existing like the Coulomb force isn't normally
considered to have a speed.
Are you saying some speed other than c should be used at
equation 511?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
(Note that these are time-dependent equations, not subject to
the so called "twin clock paradox")
Sue...
Androcles
"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:erf464$jne$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
>>
>>>Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
>>>dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
>>>fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
>>>only become independent in the farfield.
>>
>>
>> Vague and false. What is far and what is near?
>>
>> The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the
>> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".
>
>
> You need to read the paper for specifics.
No I don't, your statement is vague and false.
You need to understand the PoR, Doppler, MMX, Sagnac and photons.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
The speed of the fields are dependent on the velocity of the
source, de pendant hangs from de ceiling.
Sue...
>
> > Your derivations seem generally along these lines:
> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic
> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
> > Formerly:http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
>
> Yes. But the main diffence is that I analyze the speed of the
> propagating field components specifically when the source or observation
> point is moving.
>
>
>
> > You should check the date of:
> > "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
> > speed of the light source, then my
> > whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity
> > is false. " - Albert E. Einstein
>
<< Do you know the date? I have not come across it yet. >>
<<With reference to the question of double stars presenting evidence
against his relativity theory, he wrote the Berlin University
Observatory astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich the following: "I am
very curious about the results of your research...," he wrote to
Freundlich in 1913. "If the speed of light is the least bit affected
by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity
and theory of gravity is false." [38 p.207] >>
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_5.html
Sue...
>
>
>
> > Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the
> > 1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.
>
> >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...
Igor
Just one question. Please explain how you think these findings, if
correct, would be incompatible with relativity?
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig
I do not like the experimental setup you used.
From: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
Even you are suspect of standing wave effects:
>4.1.2 Superluminal illusion due to presence of standing waves
>It is also suggested by some authors that the near-field of an electrical dipole
>consists of an electrical field which grows and collapses synchronized with the
>oscillation of the electric dipole, resulting in a type of standing wave. Since standing
>waves are thought to be the addition of transmitted and reflected waves the resultant
>field may yield phase shifts unrelated to how the fields propagate, .........
Why not use pulsed signals instead of continuous waves?
Why at all do you use a resonant receiving antenna instead of
a small capacitive coupling AKA "piece_of_wire" of 1 cm length,
or an inductively coupled antenna which does not respond to
electrical fields and so on.
A skilled experimenter team will find some more ideas,
above is just my two cents.
w.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving dipole
> source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the fields are
> dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become
> independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show that the fields
> propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to the
> speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.
A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,
but do fields?
> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s
> theory of special relativity theory is based,
Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase
speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be
superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with
special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.
Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The
Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei and
Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are
Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can
results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?
> relativity theory is
> reanalyzed.
[cut]
Further comment awaiting time to read your paper.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Androcles
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@serene.st...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:
> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving dipole
> source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the fields are
> dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become
> independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show that the fields
> propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to the
> speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.
A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,
but do fields?
Idiot!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s
> theory of special relativity theory is based,
Since when?
Since before Einstein was born, moron.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[...]
>
> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase
> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be
> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with
> special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.
The possibility of group speed being faster than light is a new one to
me.
When you say faster than light, do you mean faster than the vacuum
propagation speed of light or the propagation speed of light in a
medium? The former would be very surprising to me, the latter not so
much.
[...]
William
My paper shows that in vaccum both the phase speed and the group speed
of the EM fields generated by a dipole source are superluminal in the
nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as the fields propagate into
the farfield. In addition, in the nearfield, the phase speed and group
speed of the propagating fields is dependant on the velocity of the
source or observer.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
velocity can be larger than c.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
William
Thank you for the quotation information.
No, the c term in equation 511 refers to the phase speed of the fields
in the farfield of the source. In the nearfield the phase speed is
nearly infinite. Refer to my previous paper for more detail on how the
phase speed of the fields are determined from Maxwell's equations. This
paper also shows a simple antenna experiment which demonstrates the
nearfield superluminal phase speed.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
William
Relativity theory is based on the assumption that the speed of light is
constant and independent of the source's velocity. If it is proven that
the speed is different in the nearfield then one will get different
space contraction and time dilation effects depending on whether
near-field of far-field propagating fields are used. But according to
relativity these effects should only be dependent on the velocity of the
source or observer. My proposal is that relativistic effects are an
illusion caused by the far-field time delays of the EM fields used to
measure the effects. In the nearfield, EM field time delays are nearly
zero because their speed are nearly infinite, resulting in no near-field
relativistic effects.
Sam Wormley
That's not apparent to me--I've not studied classical electrodynamics
formally, but have dabbled in the last few years... enough to own a
copy of Jackson. Ch.7.5 B. Anomalous Dispersion and Resonate Absorption
I think you must be referring to 7.11 Arrival of a Signal After
Propagation through a dispersive Medium... Which also includes:
"If the phase velocity or the group velocity is greater than the speed
of light in a vacuum for important frequency components, does the
signal propagate faster than allowed by causality and relativity"?
Later
"The proof that no *signal* can propagate faster than the speed of light
in a vacuum, whatever the detailed properties of the medium, is now
straightforward"...
Thanks for the reference Mati.
Timo A. Nieminen
The former, surprising though it might be. Group speed is about the
envelope of a bunch of waves. One can even get the envelope to emerge from
a black box before it enters - negative group speeds! What could be more
FTL?
Now, in "conventional" systems - such as free space, hollow conducting
waveguides, etc, we usually have v_p * v_g = c^2, and have "signals" -
basically, the energy, momentum, and information encoded therein,
travelling at v_g. v_p > c follows quite trivially and uselessly.
As Mati already mentioned, the classic case of v_g > c is anomalous
dispersion. To further amplify this point, v_g > c can occur in a wide
variety of systems exhibiting loss or gain. Consider, first, the
implications that refractive index != 1 has for absorption/gain, ie
Kramers-Kronig relations. Where in a spectrum do we find anomalous
dispersion?
Perhaps the most fun case is superluminal v_g in tunnelling. Very, very
similar to the original subject of this thread. Not, strictly speaking, a
lossy system, but it's a system with transmission < 1, so the same maths
applies. The best published stuff is by Herbert Winful, and a google
scholar search by the interested will readily find it (interestingly,
google seems at least resilient wrt "tunnelling" vs "tunneling"). Those
without access to the pay-for-access journals can still get his stuff in
the freely-available Optics Express and NJP.
Yes, some people latch onto v_g > c as an "anti-relativistic" effect, but
that's from a misunderstanding of what "thing" means in "no-thing can go
faster than the speed of light". Grokking v_g > c and speed of transport
of energy and information can be quite instructive. Recommended exercise!
Less connected but fun exercise: Consider the superluminal laser pointer
dot (ie, pointer is rotated fast enough so dot on distant screen moves
superluminally). (a) What is the motion of the dot in an arbitrary
inertial reference frame? (b) What does an observer see (and I mean
observer as in somebody who is somewhere looking, not the common and
abhorrent "observer = reference frame")?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
than mine, coming from a newer edition of Jackson. The 1st edition,
which I've, is not getting that far and just briefly mentions the
issue in section 7.4, relegating the gory details to the problems
section (which Jackson is prone to do). The essence is there, though.
Sue...
It isn't clear from Einstein's 1923 Lecture that he has full
appreciation for the nearfield EM reactance and he keeps
one foot on a Newtonian ether while *suggesting*
Mach's principle makes better sense. I think he might
support you conclusion at that point of his career.
A modern derivation where a *thing* is a charge with
mass/energy equivalence and light is not a *thing*
isn't so kind to your conclusions. IOW you haven't
shown what we should use instead of "c" for time
dependent Maxwell's equations.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
Does Einstein get in trouble for keeping one foot on
Newton's ether? IMHO he does. Tune in near years end. :o)
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Scallops ! :-)
http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/navaids/tacan/tacan1.htm
Sue...
William
>
> It isn't clear from Einstein's 1923 Lecture that he has full
> appreciation for the nearfield EM reactance and he keeps
> one foot on a Newtonian ether while *suggesting*
> Mach's principle makes better sense. I think he might
> support you conclusion at that point of his career.
>
> A modern derivation where a *thing* is a charge with
> mass/energy equivalence and light is not a *thing*
> isn't so kind to your conclusions. IOW you haven't
> shown what we should use instead of "c" for time
> dependent Maxwell's equations.
I am not suggesting that Maxwell's equations be changed at all. C in
Maxwell's equations is simply a constant that turns out to be the
farfield phase speed of propagating EM fields.
William
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>
>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield
>> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results
>> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
>> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the
>> farfield of the source.
>
>
> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,
> but do fields?
>
Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move
they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if
charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:
Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the
speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c
>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which
>> Einstein’s theory of special relativity theory is based,
>
>
> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase
> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be
> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict
> with special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.
>
In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are
used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. This can be done using
monochromatic sources where the field propagation is described by it's
phase speed, or by using non-monochromatic (but narrow banded) sources
where the field group propagates at the group speed.
> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The
> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei
> and Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are
> Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can
> results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?
>
>> relativity theory is reanalyzed.
>
> [cut]
>
> Further comment awaiting time to read your paper.
>
Perhaps reading the paper will help answer this question.
PD
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>
> >> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
> >> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
> >> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield
> >> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results
> >> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
> >> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the
> >> farfield of the source.
>
> > A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,
> > but do fields?
>
> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move
> they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if
> charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:
> Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the
> speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c
You are missing Timo's point. The *disturbance* in the field
propagates, but does the field itself propagate. At the risk of
implying more physical connection than is really there, consider
sound. Sound is defined as a disturbance of local positions of a
material medium such as air. The fact that sound clearly propagates
from your mouth to my ear does not mean that the *air* propagates from
your mouth to my ear.
Likewise, if you have a rope tied to a tree, and you snap the free end
of the rope with your wrist, there is a signal that is transmitted
from your hand to the tree (and reflected back again) though the rope
clearly does not travel from your hand to the tree.
The transmission of energy in an electromagnetic wave is caused by the
passing of *magnitude* of field from one location to another with
time. This does not mean that the field itself moves, only that the
disturbance in the field and the energy that is contained in that
disturbance moves.
My apologies if this sounds elementary. I'm trying to put it in the
simplest terms possible.
PD
Peter Quincy Taggart
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2818.2001.00875.x
In this paper we have demonstrated numerically how the general theory
describing the missing localizability of photons can result in
superluminal interactions in near-field optics. It was shown how
the pulse emitted from a point-dipole changes it shape as it
propagates through the near field, and it was demonstrated that
this change in shape is caused by the missing localization
of the photons. Detecting the pulse more than a pulse length away
from the source dipole, it should be possible to divide the pulse
into two parts, a purely non-propagating part and a main pulse.
A simple approach to the detection problem demonstrates how,
from a measurement, one could be tempted to claim that both the
purely non-propagating part of the pulse and the peak of the
main pulse are propagating with superluminal speed. This effect,
also caused by the missing photon localization and the finite
detection sensitivity, in no way is in conflict with the fact
that the only fundamental speed is c0, to be found in the
trailing edge of the pulse. In the last section we have pointed
out some of the difficulties faced in the standard analysis
where only propagation effects are assumed to appear in
the tunnelling barrier.
Igor
wrote:
> "William" <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in messagenews:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> > Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
> > dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
> > fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
> > only become independent in the farfield.
>
>
> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".
Please cite just one experiment that supports this. I know you can't
because it throws Maxwell's equations right out the window.
Ace0f_5pades
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1172076375.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 10:02 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "William" <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in messagenews:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
>> > Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
>> > dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
>> > fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
>> > only become independent in the farfield.
>>
>> Vague and false. What is far and what is near?
>>
>> The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the
>> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".
>
> Please cite just one experiment that supports this.
MMX
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
Sagnac
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> I know you can't
> because it throws Maxwell's equations right out the window.
I've forgotten more than you will ever know and Maxwell was
an aetherialist ... err.. fuckhead.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.
> the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source.
No, you don't. You are solving Maxwell's equations in a vacuum, and it
is an exact, unambiguoius, and mathematically rigorous property of any
exact solution that it always propagates at the speed of light.
More precisely, if you measure the field at a position that is a distance
d from the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any
characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.
What you *do* show is that if you ignore the exact properties of the
solution and look at a certain approximation, you can create the illusion
of faster-than-light propagation.
Steve Carlip
karand...@yahoo.com
Eric, check this out:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
It gives a very good explanation as to how phase and/or group velocity
can exceed c.
William
It does not explain how the phase velocity can exceed c!
William
Regardless of whether the phase speed is apparent or real, the fact is
that the time delays of the propagating fields are nearly zero in the
nearfield close to the source, and increase to approximately light speed
time delays in the farfield. I have even demonstrated this
experimentally in my Sept. of 2000 paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0009023
In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are
used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near
the source are nearly instantaneous then it can be shown that the
Lorentz transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be
seen qualitatively by substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz
transforms. In the farfield the time delays of the fields increase to
light-speed time delays and the Lorentz transform applies there.
Relativity theory is based on the assumption that the time delays of a
propagating EM field is a light-speed time delay and that this delay is
independent of the source's velocity. In my most recent paper:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166
I have shown that the time delays close to the source are nearly zero
and that in the farfield the time delay increases to approximately a
light speed time delay. In addition, the time delay is also dependent on
the velocity of the source, particularly in the nearfield. If the time
delay of the fields is not a light speed time delay in the nearfield
then one will get different space contraction and time dilation effects
depending on whether near-field of far-field propagating fields are
used. But according to relativity these effects should only be dependent
on the velocity of the source or observer. My conclusion is that
relativistic effects are an illusion caused by the far-field time delays
of the EM fields used to measure the effects.
I also still disagree with you, regarding the reality of superluminal
phase speed of the fields in the nearfield of a dipole source. Using the
Lorentz gauge, it can be shown that the potentials propagate at the
speed of light. Using other gauges (for instance the Coulomb gauge) the
potentials can even be instantaneous. The potentials are simply
mathematical tools which enable a simple calculation of the fields. The
potentials are not what are directly measurable, the fields are.
Additional calculation is required to determine the fields from the
potentials. To calculate the B field, for instance, the curl of the
vector potential must be computed which adds additional spacial phase
shifts to the light speed vector potential. This is clearly seen in the
derivation of the dipole solution from Maxwell's equations in my last paper:
Igor
wrote:
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:1172076375.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Fortunately most of the stuff you've forgotten is all in error, as is
most of the stuff you currently claim to know. There's nowhere in
those presentations where the claim of light speed being dependent on
speed of the source is even evident. One could just as easily toss in
the currently accepted value for c and nothing would change. So
you've demonstrated absolutely nothing of any worth to anybody. If
the speed of EM radiation were dependent on the speed of the source,
those cited experiments would have to have dramatically different
results.
Sam Wormley
> On Feb 20, 9:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> William wrote:
>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
>>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
>>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
>>> only become independent in the farfield.
>
> Sam... You are a parrot.
>
> Sue...
>
>
That's a compliment, Dennis!
Timo A. Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>>
>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving dipole
>>> source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the fields are
>>> dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become
>>> independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show that the fields
>>> propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to
>>> the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.
>>
>> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,
>> but do fields?
>
> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move they
> generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if charge is
> oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be: Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then
> the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the speed of light: i.e. kr-wt =
> constant when dr/dt = w/k = c
Not the point. _Read_ the question! In any case, I'd dispute that calling
fields "force vectors generated by sources" is either correct or useful.
However, it's just a point of terminology and not relevant to the content
or correctness of your paper.
>>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s
>>> theory of special relativity theory is based,
>>
>> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase
>> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be
>> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with
>> special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.
>
> In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are used
> to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a moving frame.
No, or at least not in most derivations of the Lorentz transforms. Note
well the existence of derivations of the Lorentz transforms that make no
identification of the invariant parameter c with anything electromagnetic
or optical until the Lorentz transforms are already in hand.
> This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating EM field from one
> frame to the other. This can be done using monochromatic sources where the
> field propagation is described by it's phase speed, or by using
> non-monochromatic (but narrow banded) sources where the field group
> propagates at the group speed.
Time delay from one frame to the other? The conventional electromagnetic
"derivation" of the Lorentz transforms usually proceeds by choosing a
clock synchronisation in each of two frames so the the speed of signals at
c in one frame have the same speed c in the other frame. Since the
relevant postulate is that c is invariant, it only makes sense to do so
with signals that travel at speed c.
Historically, SR arose from electromagnetic theory, but it isn't dependent
on electromagnetism in the way you suggest above.
>> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The
>> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei and
>> Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are
>> Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can
>> results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?
This is the key question! How can you get results breaking Lorentz
symmetry when you start with a Lorentz-symmetric system? In other words,
where does the non-Lorentz behaviour arise?
See text immediately after eqn (4). Since when is this the case? Leaving
aside the matter of relativity of simultaneity, your claim appears to be a
straightforward denial of Lorentz contraction. Sure, given R=r-vt in one
frame, you have R'=r'-vt' in the other, but, under Lorentz, you don't have
R=R', r=r', t=t' - assuming these is Galileian. So, basically (22) which
depends on this Galileian assumption might be correct to first-order in
v/c, but will be wrong in 2nd or higher order. You also assume that k=k',
w=w'. Note also that Galileian assumption are not necessarily correct to
first order in a Lorentzian universe. Consider composition of velocities
when 1 of the velocities (c_phase in your case) is close to the speed of
light and the other velocity small such that v<<c - the Galileian result
is wrong even in 1st order in v/c.
In (25) [note sign error!], the far-field term works, because you throw
away all the stuff in (21) and (22) that contains the results of the
Galileian assumptions, leaving only the result of the Lorentzian
assumption that c in the retarded current J(t-R/c) is invariant. For the
near-field term, since the input is only correct to 1st order in v/c at
best, obtaining the correct to zero order in v/c looks reasonable enough.
Given that Maxwell + invariant c is Lorentz-symmetric, any non-Lorentzian
result must result from non-Lorentzian assumptions or errors in the maths.
Apart from the sign error, I don't see errors in the maths. I'd be
interested to see what it all looks like if you don't make the
Galileian assumptions. Post if you do so!
Ace0f_5pades
>
> - Show quoted text -
with simple deduction, one can see how phase would accelerate speeds
C^2. The new photon experimental station they built over in England
showed that as a photon is accelerated (excited) it's light increases,
-the frequency wave shortens... therefore, closer to source light
suggests greater excitement. greater speeds of variable c2.
is that a number 5 too? if a 5, therefore you can't argue with it.
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1172166735.2...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Mumbling word soup and whining without any mathematical backup
demonstrates your psychosis, fuckhead.
BTW, the speed of the Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields
are dependent on the velocity of Earth, you stoooopid, ignorant,
whining dumbfuck, since they move along with it as we orbit the
sun.
MMX and Sagnac support the speed of the fields are dependent
on the velocity of the source, ignorant, whining shit-for-brains.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
William
Thanks for the paper. I will take a look at it.
Tom Roberts
> The possibility of group speed being faster than light is a new one to
> me.
Go to http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html for a
simple graphic demonstration why group velocity > c cannot transmit any
information.
Tom Roberts
William
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>
>> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>>>
>>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
>>>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
>>>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield
>>>> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results
>>>> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
>>>> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into
>>>> the farfield of the source.
>>>
>>>
>>> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves
>>> propogate, but do fields?
>>
>>
>> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move
>> they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if
>> charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:
>> Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the
>> speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c
>
>
> Not the point. _Read_ the question! In any case, I'd dispute that
> calling fields "force vectors generated by sources" is either correct or
> useful. However, it's just a point of terminology and not relevant to
> the content or correctness of your paper.
This is just a point of terminology that many researchers use. There are
clearly much more important things to discuss here.
>
>>>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which
>>>> Einstein’s theory of special relativity theory is based,
>>>
>>>
>>> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes?
>>> Phase speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be
>>> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict
>>> with special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.
>>
>>
>> In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are
>> used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
>> moving frame.
>
>
> No, or at least not in most derivations of the Lorentz transforms. Note
> well the existence of derivations of the Lorentz transforms that make no
> identification of the invariant parameter c with anything
> electromagnetic or optical until the Lorentz transforms are already in
> hand.
>
I disagree, most derivations analyze the propagation of light between a
stationary and moving frame.
For example the photon clock is often used to derive time dilation
effect. Here the the speed of light is being used to measure the time
delay of light propagating perpendicular to the line of motion in the
two frames.
The time delay for light to propagate across a moving train as observed
from the moving and stationary reference frames, is also often used to
derive the Lorentz contraction.
The Lorentz transforms can then derived from these two effects
>> This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating EM field
>> from one frame to the other. This can be done using monochromatic
>> sources where the field propagation is described by it's phase speed,
>> or by using non-monochromatic (but narrow banded) sources where the
>> field group propagates at the group speed.
>
>
> Time delay from one frame to the other? The conventional electromagnetic
> "derivation" of the Lorentz transforms usually proceeds by choosing a
> clock synchronisation in each of two frames so the the speed of signals
> at c in one frame have the same speed c in the other frame. Since the
> relevant postulate is that c is invariant, it only makes sense to do so
> with signals that travel at speed c.
>
> Historically, SR arose from electromagnetic theory, but it isn't
> dependent on electromagnetism in the way you suggest above.
>
>>> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The
>>> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both
>>> Galilei and Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive
>>> equations are Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz
>>> invariant). How can results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?
>
>
> This is the key question! How can you get results breaking Lorentz
> symmetry when you start with a Lorentz-symmetric system? In other words,
> where does the non-Lorentz behaviour arise?
>
Maxwell equations can be combined resulting in two second order partial
differential equations for the E and B fields (d'Alembertian of the
field equal a source, ref Eq. 9, 12 in my last paper). It is typically
shown that these equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations
and not invariant under Galilean transformation. But in my paper I have
shown that this occurs only in the farfield. In the nearfield, I have
shown that the fields propagate with nearly infinite speed consequently
making the Laplacian term (Del squared of field) zero in the PDE's. The
resulting equation in the nearfield is then invariant under Galilean
transformations.
> See text immediately after eqn (4). Since when is this the case? Leaving
> aside the matter of relativity of simultaneity, your claim appears to be
> a straightforward denial of Lorentz contraction.
I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of Maxwell
equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the transformations
are Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So if near-field EM
propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed effects
will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no Lorentz contraction, no
time dilation), and if far-field EM propagation is used to measure time
and space then the observed effects will follow Lorentz transformations
(i.e. get Lorentz contraction and time dilation effects).
Maxwell equations may be relativistically wrong of course, but infinite
near-field phase speed between dipole antennas has been observed
experimentally (ref my last paper). The consequences can be
qualitatively seen by simply inserting infinity for c in the Lorentz
transforms resulting in Galilean transforms in the nearfield. In the
farfield the same experiment also shows that the fields propagate at the
known speed of light. My analysis shows that this leads to the known
Lorentz transforms in the farfield.
> Sure, given R=r-vt in
> one frame, you have R'=r'-vt' in the other, but, under Lorentz, you
> don't have R=R', r=r', t=t' - assuming these is Galileian. So, basically
> (22) which depends on this Galileian assumption might be correct to
> first-order in v/c, but will be wrong in 2nd or higher order. You also
> assume that k=k', w=w'. Note also that Galileian assumption are not
> necessarily correct to first order in a Lorentzian universe. Consider
> composition of velocities when 1 of the velocities (c_phase in your
> case) is close to the speed of light and the other velocity small such
> that v<<c - the Galileian result is wrong even in 1st order in v/c.
>
> In (25) [note sign error!],
Thank you, I had not seen this typo
> the far-field term works, because you throw
> away all the stuff in (21) and (22) that contains the results of the
> Galileian assumptions, leaving only the result of the Lorentzian
> assumption that c in the retarded current J(t-R/c) is invariant. For the
> near-field term, since the input is only correct to 1st order in v/c at
> best, obtaining the correct to zero order in v/c looks reasonable enough.
>
> Given that Maxwell + invariant c is Lorentz-symmetric, any
> non-Lorentzian result must result from non-Lorentzian assumptions or
> errors in the maths. Apart from the sign error, I don't see errors in
> the maths. I'd be interested to see what it all looks like if you don't
> make the Galileian assumptions. Post if you do so!
>
The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
theory is compatible with Maxwell equations. Only experiments can tell
if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if
the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the
nearfield would be a good start.
Sue...
> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
> compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
> transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
> theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.
What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to
Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Time-independent Maxwell equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
> Only experiments can tell
> if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if
> the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the
> nearfield would be a good start.
Consider... any matter you introduce to measure at farfield
changes the space to a nearfield. The only way I know of
to avoid the problem is mathmatically relating everything to
377 ohms. IOW Accurately simulate your coupling structure.
You may be able to do this for a special E plane only situation.
<< I then describe a model antenna consisting of two perfectly
conducting hemispheres of radius a separated by a small
equatorial gap across which occurs the driving oscillatory
electric field. The fields and surface current are determined
by solution of the boundary value problem. In contrast to the
first approach (not a boundary value problem), the tangential
electric field vanishes on the metallic surface. There is no
radial Poynting vector normal to the surface. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sue...
Alie...@gmail.com
(snip)
> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
> compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
> transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
So let me get this straight; in your experimental setup you have a
signal path split into two lines, one of which has a gap crossed by
the overlapped near fields of two antennas, and the signals' arrival
times are compared at the scope. Is it your contention that the signal
crosses said gap faster than it does the equivalent length of the
unbroken line?
If that is the case, consider extending your experiment so that the
broken line contains many gaps yielding signal propagation much faster
than is possible with an equivalent length of unbroken cable. By using
a lot of gaps you could even overcome the velocity factor of the cable
and thus exceed free-space c.*
If you don't think that'll work, why not?
Yes, that was a tad sarcastic, but really, claiming that the EM
properties of the volume around one antenna when another is within a
wavelength of it is equivalent those of the volume around an isolated
antenna, is somewhat ridiculous. If they were the same, directional
multielement (e.g. Yagi-Uda) arrays would exhibit the same lobes as a
simple dipole. They obviously do not. The near field is _not_ "free
space".
The fields of antennae close to each other interact. Consider that
the receiving antenna's near field, by symmetry, must propagate
disturbances from its fringes inward to the antenna _much slower_ than
c (using your terminology).
FTM the field propagating away from an antenna reacts (Did you
notice another poster mentioning "reactance"? Where did you think the
word came from?) back on the field it emits; I notice that at no point
in your paper do you consider anything other than a steady radiative
state in the sense that you don't consider how the near field comes to
be in the first place. IOW start with an unenergized antenna, feed it
some RF, and model the process of reaching the steady radiative state.
You'll soon see where the apparent FTL near field effects come from.
> The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
> theory is compatible with Maxwell equations. Only experiments can tell
> if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if
> the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the
> nearfield would be a good start.
Sigh. You plan to model/measure that in the near field as well?
* If that looks familiar to some people, there was a regular poster
here who claimed he'd invented exactly what I described and was going
to destroy Relativity, get rich, and so on. I wonder whatever happened
to him?
Mark L. Fergerson
PS I'm not even going to task you to justify your claim that the
longitudinal component of the near field "slows to c" at the fringe;
it simply vanishes. If you think otherwise, please tell us how to
build an antenna that is selective for that component.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>>> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s
>>>>> theory of special relativity theory is based,
>>>>
>>>> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase
>>>> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be
>>>> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with
>>>> special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.
>>>
>>> In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are
>>> used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a moving
>>> frame.
>>
>> No, or at least not in most derivations of the Lorentz transforms. Note
>> well the existence of derivations of the Lorentz transforms that make no
>> identification of the invariant parameter c with anything electromagnetic
>> or optical until the Lorentz transforms are already in hand.
>
> I disagree, most derivations analyze the propagation of light between a
> stationary and moving frame.
What do you disagree with? That non-electromagnetic derivations exist? Or
that most derivations don't use propagating EM fields to "measure the
location of points from a stationary frame to a moving frame"?
The non-EM derivations certainly exist. The usual "light-signal"
derivation that EM _waves_ (not fields) to send signals that are used to
synchronise clocks in each frame. The frames agreeing on the value of c
gives the coordinate transformation between the frames. Note well that EM
waves in free space - and far-field EM waves at that - because the signal
travels at c.
>>>> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The
>>>> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei
>>>> and Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are
>>>> Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can
>>>> results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?
>>
>> This is the key question! How can you get results breaking Lorentz symmetry
>> when you start with a Lorentz-symmetric system? In other words, where does
>> the non-Lorentz behaviour arise?
>
> Maxwell equations can be combined resulting in two second order partial
> differential equations for the E and B fields (d'Alembertian of the field
> equal a source, ref Eq. 9, 12 in my last paper). It is typically shown that
> these equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations and not invariant
> under Galilean transformation.
Yes, and this invariance is because c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 mu_0) is the same
in all inertial frames under Lorentz transformations. Under Galilei
transformations, you'd only have the wave equation in the "absolute"
reference frame. c being a constant is all that you need for Lorentz
invariance in this case.
> But in my paper I have shown that this occurs
> only in the farfield.
How? The Lorentz invariance results from c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 mu_0) being
invariant. c is invariant because epsilon_0 and mu_0 are invariant. Since
these are still invariant in the near field, the wave equation is still
invariant in the near field.
> In the nearfield, I have shown that the fields
> propagate with nearly infinite speed consequently making the Laplacian term
> (Del squared of field) zero in the PDE's. The resulting equation in the
> nearfield is then invariant under Galilean transformations.
... to first, or at least zero, order in v/c, given the Galileian
approximations you used.
As a speed approaches infinity, what is the difference between the
Galileian and Lorentzian results for composition of velocities?
> I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of Maxwell
> equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the transformations are
> Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So if near-field EM
> propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed effects will
> follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no Lorentz contraction, no time
> dilation), and if far-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space
> then the observed effects will follow Lorentz transformations (i.e. get
> Lorentz contraction and time dilation effects).
Rulers are used to measure space. Clocks are used to measure time.
Far-field EM propagation (or some other signal that travels at c) can be
used to _synchronise_ the clocks.
If you want to use near-field phase speeds to synchronise clocks, so be
it, but don't claim that the result has any bearing on SR. You end up with
a clock synchronisation that depends on the position of the antenna; IMHO
a clear sign that it isn't a useful convention.
> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not compatible
> with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz transforms. Since I
> have experimentally observed superluminal near-field EM propagating fields, I
> therefore suspect relativity must be in error. The purpose of my paper was to
> see what modification to relativity theory is compatible with Maxwell
> equations. Only experiments can tell if this modified relativity theory is
> correct. A simple check to see if the phase speed of the fields are
> velocity dependent in the nearfield would be a good start.
Given that the only invariant speed in SR is c, and that the near-field
phase speed is not c, of course this phase speed is velocity dependent. It
couldn't be compatible with SR if it was not.
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>> Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
>> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
[cut]
> The near field is _not_ "free
> space".
Well, I'd call it free space. After all, you have epsilon = epsilon_0, mu
= mu_0, and that's pretty much all you need for - as far as
electromagnetics is concerned - free space.
So, near-field phase speed is a free-space superluminal phenomenon.
Likewise, superluminal tunnelling. Yes, both depend on nearby material
media, but the cure stuff happens in free space. I do see your point, but
I see "free space" as a statement about permittivity and permeability (and
sometimes charge and current densities).
The basics aren't that difficult. The magnetic field of a short electric
dipole antenna is proportional to the spherical Hankel function h_1(kr),
which is exp(ikr)/kr ( 1 + i/(kr)). In the far field, this gives a
spherical wave, exp(ikr)/kr. The transition from near to far gives funny
stuff due to the 1/4 wave phase difference between the 1 and i/(kr) terms,
which is where the superluminal phase speeds come from.
Sue...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2007, n...@bid.ness wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >> Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
> >> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
> [cut]
> > The near field is _not_ "free
> > space".
>
> Well, I'd call it free space. After all, you have epsilon = epsilon_0, mu
> = mu_0, and that's pretty much all you need for - as far as
> electromagnetics is concerned - free space.
Free-space has a wave impedance of ~377 ohms.
The reactance of the coupling structure (antenna)
modifies that in the near-field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Consider a dipole is just a quarter-wave inpedance
inverting section that matches ~70 to ~377 ohms.
>
> So, near-field phase speed is a free-space superluminal phenomenon.
> Likewise, superluminal tunnelling. Yes, both depend on nearby material
> media, but the cure stuff happens in free space. I do see your point, but
> I see "free space" as a statement about permittivity and permeability (and
> sometimes charge and current densities).
Tunnelling is a good term if you use the integral form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
one charge moves two charges, which moves one charge.
That magnetic path can *appear* superlumial but the two charges
in the midddle only move 1/2 as far. So there is no free lunch.
>
> The basics aren't that difficult. The magnetic field of a short electric
> dipole antenna is proportional to the spherical Hankel function h_1(kr),
> which is exp(ikr)/kr ( 1 + i/(kr)). In the far field, this gives a
> spherical wave, exp(ikr)/kr. The transition from near to far gives funny
> stuff due to the 1/4 wave phase difference between the 1 and i/(kr) terms,
> which is where the superluminal phase speeds come from.
I am not removing my shoes to decipher that but it looks like
something Heaviside would give blessing to.
Jackson give a flavor for just how funny it gets.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sue...
William
> On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
>>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
>>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
>>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
>
>
> Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?
I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was
compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the antenna is
optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.
>
> << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
> the relative strength of electric and magnetic
> fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
>
>
>
>>The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
>>theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.
>
>
> What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to
> Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?
I am not sure what you are asking. In my papers I simply assume
Maxwell's equations are correct and analyze the phase speed of EM fields
in both the nearfield and farfield. The analysis shows that in the
farfield the phase speed is the speed of light (c), but in the nearfield
the phase speed is nearly infinite. Since relativity theory is based on
the speed of light, I have taken another look a special relativity
theory to see if it is compatible with infinite near-field phase speed.
My analysis shows that Galilean relativity is more applicable in the
nearfield and Einstein theory is more applicable in the farfield. This
can easily be seen by substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz
transforms (in the nearfield), yielding the Galilean transforms. So my
conclusion is that if near-field EM fields are used to measure time and
space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then Galilean
relativity should be used. If far-field EM fields are used to measure
time and space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then
Einstein relativity should be used.
Dirk Van de moortel
"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:es3n6p$tco$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> Sue... wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
>>>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
>>>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
>>>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
>>
>>
>> Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?
>
> I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the
> antenna is optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.
>
>>
>> << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
>> the relative strength of electric and magnetic
>> fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
>> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
>>>theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.
>>
>>
>> What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to
>> Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?
>
>
> I am not sure what you are asking.
You are talking to a retired engineer with the name
Dennis McCarthy. He is a troll.
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
> >>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
> >>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
> >>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
>
> > Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?
>
> I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was
> compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the antenna is
> optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.
A pair of such antenna wouldn't be 377 ohms if they are in each
others near fields, would they?
>
>
>
> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic
> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
> >http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity...
>
> >>The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
> >>theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.
>
> > What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to
> > Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?
>
> I am not sure what you are asking. In my papers I simply assume
> Maxwell's equations are correct and analyze the phase speed of EM fields
> in both the nearfield and farfield.
Maxwell's time independent equations must not be correct or
we wouldn't bother with time dependent version?
> The analysis shows that in the
> farfield the phase speed is the speed of light (c), but in the nearfield
> the phase speed is nearly infinite.
It doesn't show me that unless you have the paths
impedance matched.
Put a directional coupler in the feed line and watch the
the reflected power when you move the sampling antenna
into the near-field.
> Since relativity theory is based on
> the speed of light, I have taken another look a special relativity
> theory to see if it is compatible with infinite near-field phase speed.
> My analysis shows that Galilean relativity is more applicable in the
> nearfield and Einstein theory is more applicable in the farfield. This
> can easily be seen by substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz
> transforms (in the nearfield), yielding the Galilean transforms. So my
> conclusion is that if near-field EM fields are used to measure time and
> space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then Galilean
> relativity should be used. If far-field EM fields are used to measure
> time and space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then
> Einstein relativity should be used.
I think you'll find time-dependent Maxwell equations are a more
direct solution to the problem... and you don't have to re-invent
them.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
Near and Far fields
http://www.edn.com/article/CA150828.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
The Wikipedia page "Near and Far fields" is desperately in
need of some tuning if you are interested in a learning project.
Sue...
BTW... I assume if you want Dennis McCarthy's opinion on
your work, you will go through NASA or USNO. AFAIK he
has not been active on this n.g. for several years, despite
rumours to the contrary.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.
>>>Not only do the EM fields start out faster than light, but the speed of
>>>the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source.
>> No, you don't. You are solving Maxwell's equations in a vacuum, and it
>> is an exact, unambiguoius, and mathematically rigorous property of any
>> exact solution that it always propagates at the speed of light.
>>
>> More precisely, if you measure the field at a position that is a distance
>> d from the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any
>> characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.
>> What you *do* show is that if you ignore the exact properties of the
>> solution and look at a certain approximation, you can create the illusion
>> of faster-than-light propagation.
fields, which also satisfy a wave equation. (You know this -- I sent
you the derivation.)
> Additional calculation is required to determine the fields from the
> potentials. To calculate the B field, for instance, the curl of the
> vector potential must be computed which adds additional spacial phase
> shifts to the light speed vector potential. This is clearly seen in the
> derivation of the dipole solution from Maxwell's equations in my last paper:
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
Sigh. Just look at your equations (27) and (28), and at the definition of
the Greens function with which you are doing the convolution. It follows
*directly* from these equations that, as I said,
If you measure the field at a position that is a distance d from
the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any
characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.
If you agree with that, then a claim that the field is somehow traveling
faster than light is just perverse. If you don't agree with it, then you
don't understand your own paper.
Steve Carlip
William
c is simply a constant that corresponds to the far-field EM phase speed.
It is true that in the farfield c is invariant, yielding the Lorentz
transforms. But in the nearfield infinity is invariant, yielding the
Galelian transforms. This also agrees with the argument I made below.
>
>> In the nearfield, I have shown that the fields propagate with nearly
>> infinite speed consequently making the Laplacian term (Del squared of
>> field) zero in the PDE's. The resulting equation in the nearfield is
>> then invariant under Galilean transformations.
>
>
> ... to first, or at least zero, order in v/c, given the Galileian
> approximations you used.
In a stationary frame (where v = 0) the phase speed is infinite in the
nearfield. Simply set v=0 in my phase speed calculation.
>
> As a speed approaches infinity, what is the difference between the
> Galileian and Lorentzian results for composition of velocities?
>
>> I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of
>> Maxwell equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the
>> transformations are Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So
>> if near-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space then
>> the observed effects will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no
>> Lorentz contraction, no time dilation), and if far-field EM
>> propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed
>> effects will follow Lorentz transformations (i.e. get Lorentz
>> contraction and time dilation effects).
>
>
> Rulers are used to measure space. Clocks are used to measure time.
> Far-field EM propagation (or some other signal that travels at c) can be
> used to _synchronise_ the clocks.
>
> If you want to use near-field phase speeds to synchronise clocks, so be
> it, but don't claim that the result has any bearing on SR. You end up
> with a clock synchronisation that depends on the position of the
> antenna; IMHO a clear sign that it isn't a useful convention.
>
I disagree, synchronization can clearly be done using EM fields in the
nearfield where the invariant speed is infinity. In the nearfield the
Lorentz transforms turn into the Galilean transforms. This can be seen
by simply inserting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms.
I agree it seems unusual that the transformations are dependent on
nearfield or farfield. But just because it does not match your
expectations does it mean it is wrong. In my opinion the results mean
that if near-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space then
the observed effects will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no
Lorentz contraction, no time dilation), and if far-field EM propagation
is used to measure time and space then the observed effects will follow
Lorentz transformations (i.e. get Lorentz contraction and time dilation
effects).
jt...@tele2.se
> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
> only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show
> that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the
> farfield of the source.
>
> reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is
> dependent on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or
> farfield propagating EM fields.
>
> In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the
> coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the
> gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula
> indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield.
>
> Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether near-field
> or far-field propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is
> proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by
> the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and
> time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.
>
> A paper arguing this proposal is available for download at:
>
> http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/walker.pdf
>
> William D. Walker
Äntligen!!!! har det hänt ljuset är tänt.
lol
En strimma ljus in i Einsteins mörka hus
lol
Robert, Carlip, Andersen med flera säg vill ni inte se mera
lol
Kom ut från er mörka grotta timmen är inte tolv den är bara åtta.
lol
Men för att stoppa tidens gång ni måste stämma in i denna sång.
lol
Rumtiden ja den är inte krökt och ja Einstein han är rökt.
lol
Gallilan relaitivitet ja den lever än och det där med koordinaterna ja
det tar vi sen.
lol
Jonas Thörnvall
doug
>
> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not
> compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz
> transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field
> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.
> The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity
> theory is compatible with Maxwell equations. Only experiments can tell
> if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if
> the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the nearfield
> would be a good start.
details of your measurement are not clear from your paper, there are
numerous pitfalls in doing rf measurements. From your drawings it looks
like you fell into a number of them. The fact you are using a scope
rather than proper rf test equipment also suggests that is true.
This is quite easy to reproduce (correctly) and it would be interesting
to do so in an rf proper way. If the weekend is quiet, I will do so
and let you know what I see.
Androcles
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>> Given that the only invariant speed in SR is c, and that the near-field
>> phase speed is not c, of course this phase speed is velocity dependent.
The angular velocity of my car's wheels is speed dependent. Of course.
William
The experiment is simple enough to reproduce. It would be very
interesting to see what you come up with. The biggest problem is how to
handle the reflections off of everything in the lab. To get a more
qualitative result you will need to do the experiment in an anechoic
chamber appropriate for the antenna transmission frequency. Also
experimentally check that the input impedance of your phase shift
measurement instrument does not add significant phase shifts due to the
changing transmitter to receiver antenna capacitance.
Also it would be nice if your detecting antenna is small compared to the
transmitting antenna so that measured field represents the field
measured at that point, also this will help reduce back reflections from
the detector which can then reflect from the transmitter antenna and add
significant phase shift error to your measurement.
Tom Roberts
> [...]
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
You make elementary mathematical errors and consider the result to be
"new physics".
In your (14) on the left you correctly parameterize the Green's function
as a function of both _R_ and t (_R_ is a 3-vector, and in modern
language G(.) is a function on the manifold). But you screw it up on the
right and write r-r' and t-t' where you should have written _R_ and t
(the arguments of G(.)) [%]. And you also fail to carry the argument
dependence through the derivation, and by (35) you have rho(.) and J(.)
as functions of a single scalar argument. This is manifestly wrong, as
both rho(.) and J(.) _MUST_ be functions on the manifold (just think
about what they represent).
[%] yes, you show the relationship in a diagram. Your error
is in not propagating the arguments through the derivation,
forgetting your diagram, and omitting the diagram for t.
You have fooled yourself by not following standard mathematical
derivations. Look at (26), remembering that G remains a function of both
_R_ and t (even though you did not bother to write that explicitly, and
you have confused yourself by using t-t' instead of t, the argument of
G(.) from (14)) -- if you correctly write (32) with the arguments
explicitly shown, it is QUITE CLEAR that the only contribution will be
for the sources (rho(.) and J(.)) at the retarded time:
V(r,t) = -4pi Integral G(r-r',t-t') rho(r',t') dt' d^3r'
A(r,t) = -4pi/c Integral G(r-r',t-t') J(r',t') dt' d^3r'
(here r and r' are 3-vectors and the integrals are over all
space and time)
Remember the delta function in G(.) makes the integral over t' trivial,
evaluating rho(.) and J(.) at the retarded time.
As Steve Carlip has said several times:
If you measure the field at a position that is a distance d from
the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any
characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.
It is also true that the results are totally independent of any
characteristic of the source at any time before t-d/c. For a point
source, rho(.) is a function on the manifold giving its position, and
J(.) is a function on the manifold giving its velocity, and as a result
the fields at any given location depend only on the point source's
retarded position and velocity [%] -- this is the well-known "linear
extrapolation" mentioned by Feynman and others.
[%] for a timelike point source this is easily shown to be
single valued.
For equations as above, if one insists on using the phrase "propagation
speed" for the above integrals [#], the value c is the only sensible
value. So there is no "superluminal propagation" at all, near field or
far field (indeed there is no such distinction here, as that
approximation has not yet been applied).
[#] I would not do so, but YOU seem to insist on it.
Do you think the surface of the earth "propagates with
infinite speed" from its center? -- using "propagation
speed" above is essentially equivalent to that silliness.
Propagation speed makes sense for EM waves, not fields.
This is all just standard E&M. When corrected, your equations look just
like I remember from class long ago (I have not verified them with
Jackson, however). Fix your errors and you will see there's nothing new
here....
Tom Roberts
Timo A. Nieminen
> it is QUITE
> CLEAR that the only contribution will be for the sources (rho(.) and J(.)) at
> the retarded time:
[cut]
Isn't this already clear from the very beginning, given the (t-R/c)?
> For equations as above, if one insists on using the phrase "propagation
> speed" for the above integrals [#], the value c is the only sensible value.
> So there is no "superluminal propagation" at all, near field or far field
> (indeed there is no such distinction here, as that approximation has not yet
> been applied).
What does phase speed have to do with the above (r-R/c)? Superluminal
phase speed is normal in systems with evanescant waves - see the ongoing
hoo-hah about superluminal electromagnetic tunnelling. For a discussion
about dipole antennas, see Sten & Hujanen, PIER 56, 67-80 (2006).
Timo Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, William wrote:
> >
> >> Maxwell equations can be combined resulting in two second order
> >> partial differential equations for the E and B fields (d'Alembertian
> >> of the field equal a source, ref Eq. 9, 12 in my last paper). It is
> >> typically shown that these equations are invariant under Lorentz
> >> transformations and not invariant under Galilean transformation.
> >
> > Yes, and this invariance is because c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 mu_0) is the
> > same in all inertial frames under Lorentz transformations. Under Galilei
> > transformations, you'd only have the wave equation in the "absolute"
> > reference frame. c being a constant is all that you need for Lorentz
> > invariance in this case.
> >
> >> But in my paper I have shown that this occurs only in the farfield.
> >
> > How? The Lorentz invariance results from c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 mu_0)
> > being invariant. c is invariant because epsilon_0 and mu_0 are
> > invariant. Since these are still invariant in the near field, the wave
> > equation is still invariant in the near field.
>
> c is simply a constant that corresponds to the far-field EM phase speed.
> It is true that in the farfield c is invariant, yielding the Lorentz
> transforms. But in the nearfield infinity is invariant, yielding the
> Galelian transforms. This also agrees with the argument I made below.
In the nearfield, you get the phase speed, approaching infinity as kr->0,
being invariant because of the Galilean assumptions/approximations you
made. You the farfield phase speed, c, being invariant because you
explicitly assumed it to be c in both reference frames in your derivation.
> >> I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of
> >> Maxwell equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the
> >> transformations are Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So
> >> if near-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space then
> >> the observed effects will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no
> >> Lorentz contraction, no time dilation), and if far-field EM
> >> propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed
> >> effects will follow Lorentz transformations (i.e. get Lorentz
> >> contraction and time dilation effects).
> >
> > Rulers are used to measure space. Clocks are used to measure time.
> > Far-field EM propagation (or some other signal that travels at c) can be
> > used to _synchronise_ the clocks.
> >
> > If you want to use near-field phase speeds to synchronise clocks, so be
> > it, but don't claim that the result has any bearing on SR. You end up
> > with a clock synchronisation that depends on the position of the
> > antenna; IMHO a clear sign that it isn't a useful convention.
>
> I disagree, synchronization can clearly be done using EM fields in the
> nearfield where the invariant speed is infinity.
Of course. You can also synchronise clocks using sound waves, runners with
time-of-departure written on paper, etc. The key elements of the Einstein
synchronisation is that the signal travels both ways at c. This has two
parts to it. Firstly, since the speed is c, it automatically gives the
units of time, given a unit for distance. You can provide this separately,
by choosing time units such that c has the correct value independently of
clock synchronisation.
The second part is that the synchronisation signal travels at the same
speed both ways. Thus, your suggested superluminal phase speed
synchronisation gives the same results as, eg, sound waves that travel at
the same speed both ways, runners travelling at the same speed both ways -
namely, exactly the same synchronisation as the Einstein synchronisation.
Since both frames synchronised in this way are Einstein synchronised, the
transformation between them must just be a Lorentz transformation.
You could choose a synchronisation scheme that differs from the
equal-speed-return-trip scheme, and you will obtain a non-inertial
coordinate system - a force-free object will not travel at constant dr/dt.
Since Lorentz transformations are transformations between inertial frames,
what can such a coordinate system tell you about Lorentz transforms?
jt...@tele2.se
Nothing since the Lorentz transformation in SR is completly Bogus, but
it can tell us though that light travels variant in vacuum, and that
would anyone see who actually cared to plot what i suggest. That
lights approaching and rededing velocities to objects who travels
within group velocity in same inertial frame differ.
And that is all that is needed to prove SR wrong, because the rest is
just based on circular reasoning.
JT
> --
> Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
> E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
> Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
http://npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw105.html
jt...@tele2.se
> "Faster-than-Light Laser Pulses?"http://npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw105.html
Is it a joke???
"But Einstein's rule that the signal velocity must be less than c
remains in place."
Yes of course any value ranging from 0 to c would be in accordance
with SR.
Tom Roberts
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> it is QUITE CLEAR that the only contribution will be for the sources
>> (rho(.) and J(.)) at the retarded time:
> [cut]
>> "propagation speed" for the above integrals [#], the value c is the
>> only sensible value.
>
This is not "phase speed". Those integrals determine the values of the
potentials in terms of the sources. It is clear that the fields at a
given point depend only on rho(.) and J(.) of the source(s) at the
retarded time(s).
Phase speed has to do with the _wave_optics_approximation_ to these
integrals (or related ones for B and E).
Note that this entire derivation is in vacuum.
> Superluminal
> phase speed is normal in systems with evanescant waves - see the ongoing
> hoo-hah about superluminal electromagnetic tunnelling.
Sure. Yet such "superluminal electromagnetic tunneling" cannot transport
a signal faster than c. That's because it is _front_ speed that
transfers information, not phase or group speed. In vacuum of course,
all 3 of those speeds are equal to c.
Tom Roberts
Timo Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> it is QUITE CLEAR that the only contribution will be for the sources
> >> (rho(.) and J(.)) at the retarded time:
> > [cut]
> >> For equations as above, if one insists on using the phrase
> >> "propagation speed" for the above integrals [#], the value c is the
> >> only sensible value.
> >
> > What does phase speed have to do with the above (r-R/c)?
>
> This is not "phase speed".
Yes, that's the point. The OP claims superluminal phase speeds on the
basis of (10) and (11). Getting to (10) includes some Galileian
assumptions, but should be correct to zero or first order in v/c. (12)
with v = 0 is correct.
> Those integrals determine the values of the
> potentials in terms of the sources. It is clear that the fields at a
> given point depend only on rho(.) and J(.) of the source(s) at the
> retarded time(s).
Yes, as both you and I wrote. But what does that have to do
with phase speed, since, as you say:
[moved]
> Yet such "superluminal electromagnetic tunneling" cannot transport
> a signal faster than c. That's because it is _front_ speed that
> transfers information, not phase or group speed.
... the phase speed is, in general, not the speed of signals? This has
been known since Sommerfeld and Brillouin. The integrals tell you that the
front speed in free space is c, which is a different thing.
> In vacuum of course,
> all 3 of those speeds are equal to c.
In vacuum, distant from matter, yes. Not, in general, in vacuum. Near
matter, evanescant waves can be significant.
> Phase speed has to do with the _wave_optics_approximation_ to these
> integrals (or related ones for B and E).
What is the wave optics approximation to these integrals? Surely you don't
mean to claim that "phase speed" is absent from classical electrodynamics?
Sue...
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Tom Roberts wrote:
<< It turns out that we can also write a solution to Maxwell's
equations in terms of advanced potentials:
(525)
etc. In fact, this is just as good a solution to Maxwell's
equation as the one involving retarded potentials. To get
some idea what is going on, let us examine the
Green's function corresponding to our retarded potential
solution: ... >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html
Sue...
William
Equations 27 and 28 in previous paper:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
simply mean that the bracketed terms (i.e. terms on the RHS of the wave
equations (ref. Eq. 9,12)) need to be evaluated at the retarded time
(i.e. t => t-r/c). This does not necessarily mean that the fields
propagate at the speed of light. One must continue the calculation and
determine if the fields are a function of t-r/c. As in the case of the
dipole solution, the RHS operations can contribute additional spacial
contributions. For instance the B field generated by a dipole source is
not simply a function of t-r/c but is instead a function of:
t-(r/c)[1-1/(kr)*ArcCos{-kr/Sqrt(1+(kr)2)}]
A detailed derivation of this result can be found at the following weblink:
http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/Greensfn.pdf
Additional calculation then shows that the B field propagates
superluminally in the nearfield and then reduces to the speed of light
as it propagates into the farfield.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
> simply mean that the bracketed terms (i.e. terms on the RHS of the wave
> equations (ref. Eq. 9,12)) need to be evaluated at the retarded time
> (i.e. t => t-r/c). This does not necessarily mean that the fields
> propagate at the speed of light.
Huh? Of course it does!
The thing on the right-hand side that is evaluated at retarded time is
the state of the source. The equations you cite imply, unambiguously,
that the field at time t is completely determined by the state of the
source at time t-r/c.
In other words: if I am one light-second away from the source, the
field I measure now is completely determined by the behavior of the
source one second ago. If my friend is farther away, say two light-
seconds away from the source, the field she measures now is completely
determined by the behavior of the source two seconds ago.
That's what "propagation at the speed of light" *means*. It's not
some complicated statement about the phase of a wave, which can be
mocked up to do all sorts of things -- it's simply the statement that
if a source is a distance d away, then a measurement at time t is
determined by the source at time t-d/c.
Steve Carlip
William
> William wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> > http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
>
> You make elementary mathematical errors and consider the result to be
> "new physics".
>
> In your (14) on the left you correctly parameterize the Green's function
> as a function of both _R_ and t (_R_ is a 3-vector, and in modern
> language G(.) is a function on the manifold). But you screw it up on the
> right and write r-r' and t-t' where you should have written _R_ and t
> (the arguments of G(.)) [%].
According to Jackson 3rd ed. p.244 the Greens function equation for the
potentials of the dipole is:
d'Lembertian G(r,t ; r',t')=-4pi*delta(r-r')*delta(t-t')
Note: R=r-r'
In my paper, the solution of this equation and the derivation of the
dipole field solutions follows Jackson's anlysis.
> And you also fail to carry the argument
> dependence through the derivation, and by (35) you have rho(.) and J(.)
> as functions of a single scalar argument. This is manifestly wrong, as
> both rho(.) and J(.) _MUST_ be functions on the manifold (just think
> about what they represent).
>
> [%] yes, you show the relationship in a diagram. Your error
> is in not propagating the arguments through the derivation,
> forgetting your diagram, and omitting the diagram for t.
>
> You have fooled yourself by not following standard mathematical
> derivations. Look at (26), remembering that G remains a function of both
> _R_ and t (even though you did not bother to write that explicitly, and
> you have confused yourself by using t-t' instead of t, the argument of
> G(.) from (14)) -- if you correctly write (32) with the arguments
> explicitly shown, it is QUITE CLEAR that the only contribution will be
> for the sources (rho(.) and J(.)) at the retarded time:
>
> V(r,t) = -4pi Integral G(r-r',t-t') rho(r',t') dt' d^3r'
> A(r,t) = -4pi/c Integral G(r-r',t-t') J(r',t') dt' d^3r'
> (here r and r' are 3-vectors and the integrals are over all
> space and time)
>
> Remember the delta function in G(.) makes the integral over t' trivial,
> evaluating rho(.) and J(.) at the retarded time.
Yes, these equations above correspond to my (Eq 32). I agree that this
clearly shows that the potentials propagate at the speed of light. But
this is only true in the Lorentz gauge. Using other gauges (for instance
the Coulomb gauge) the potentials can even be instantaneous. The
potentials are simply mathematical tools which enable a simple
calculation of the fields. The potentials are not what are directly
measurable, the fields are. Additional calculation is required to
determine the fields from the potentials. To calculate the B field, for
instance, the curl of the vector potential must be computed which adds
additional spacial phase shifts to the light speed vector potential.
Refer to the following weblink where I have written a more detailed
analysis of how superluminal near-field dipole fields result from
retarded potentials.
http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/Greensfn.pdf
In my derivation may have omitted some of the variable dependencies
(r,r',t,t'). But I think the overall analysis is correct. The first part
of the paper (Eq. 1 - 35) simply derives the retarded potentials from
Maxwell equations. This is done in Jackson and in many other text books.
I then apply the retarded potentials to the oscillating dipole problem
arriving at the well known field solutions (Eq. 47, 52, 53). Again this
analysis can be found in numerous text books. I then apply the phase and
group speed formulas (Eq. 57, 62) which are not so well known but can be
found in the book: Optics by Born and Wolf (p. 15-23). The phase speed
and group results are found on p.12,13 in my paper. I then checked the
solution numerically (ref. p.23-24 in my paper) by simply multiplying
the field transfer function with the Fourier transform of the input
signal and then Inverse Fourier transforming the result. Note that this
method verifies the phase and group speed formula (Eq. 57, 62) because I
get the same results numerically which does not even use these formulas.
Finally I verified the transverse field solution experimentally by
measuring the time delay of RF signals between a transmitter and
receiver dipole antenna (ref. p. 25-27 in my paper).
Note that these superluminal field results have also recently been
independently confirmed theoretically and numerically by other researchers:
http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0311061
Sue...
[...]
>
> Note that these superluminal field results have also recently been
> independently confirmed theoretically and numerically by other researchers:
>
> http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
The nearfield of a coupling structure is not a homogenous
medium nor 377 ohms.
I question the applicability of many of the techniques in
both papers on that account.
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
I would encourage you to compare the papers with
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
...where the structure is discussed in more detail.
Sue...
William
> ....where the structure is discussed in more detail.
>
> Sue...
>
>
The theoretical analysis presented in my referenced papers:
http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0311061
as well as my paper, have nothing to do with the detector. They simply
analyze the propagation of the fields from a dipole source. Impedance is
useful in determining the reflections and transmissions of a receiving
antenna.
Impedance is a measure of the ratio the magnitude of electric field to
the magnitude of the magnetic field. Their use, I believe, has to do
with determining the reflection and transmission coefficients. If the
receiver antenna impedance is not matched to the EM field impedance (at
the receiver antenna)then some of the fields will be reflected. The
reflected fields will then reflect off of the transmitting antenna and
then constructively interfere with the the direct fields from the
transmitting antenna. This has nothing to do with the theoretical
calculations presented in the above papers because no receiver antenna
is assumed.
Experimentally the reflection issue must be considered because receiver
antennas are used to detect the fields. But because since the fields
rapidly decay 1/r^3 in the nearfield, the phase contribution at the
receiver antenna due to these reflected fields is much smaller than
those of the direct signal from the transmitter. Reflections from the
walls of the lab are much more of a problem since they decay at 1/r. But
these effects can be significantly reduced by moving the experiment to
random places in the lab and averaging the results.
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:07 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >>Note that these superluminal field results have also recently been
> >>independently confirmed theoretically and numerically by other researchers:
>
> >> http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
> >> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0311061-
>
> > The nearfield of a coupling structure is not a homogenous
> > medium nor 377 ohms.
>
> > I question the applicability of many of the techniques in
> > both papers on that account.
>
> >http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
>
> > I would encourage you to compare the papers with
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
>
> > ....where the structure is discussed in more detail.
>
> > Sue...
>
> The theoretical analysis presented in my referenced papers:
>
> http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0311061
>
> as well as my paper, have nothing to do with the detector. They simply
> analyze the propagation of the fields from a dipole source. Impedance is
> useful in determining the reflections and transmissions of a receiving
> antenna.
"Detector* is a misleading term unless you have antenna
optimized for E and B field and you have characterised
them properly. For example a small loop for B and
a Gaussian surface for E. You said you are using
a resonant dipole so you really don't know which
components are inductive and which are electric
between any pair of points on the coupled structures.
>
> Impedance is a measure of the ratio the magnitude of electric field to
> the magnitude of the magnetic field. Their use, I believe, has to do
> with determining the reflection and transmission coefficients. If the
> receiver antenna impedance is not matched to the EM field impedance (at
> the receiver antenna)then some of the fields will be reflected. The
> reflected fields will then reflect off of the transmitting antenna and
> then constructively interfere with the the direct fields from the
> transmitting antenna. This has nothing to do with the theoretical
> calculations presented in the above papers because no receiver antenna
> is assumed.
How do you theoretically intercept a B field
without assuming a conductor ?
>
> Experimentally the reflection issue must be considered because receiver
> antennas are used to detect the fields. But because since the fields
> rapidly decay 1/r^3 in the nearfield, the phase contribution at the
> receiver antenna due to these reflected fields is much smaller than
> those of the direct signal from the transmitter. Reflections from the
> walls of the lab are much more of a problem since they decay at 1/r. But
> these effects can be significantly reduced by moving the experiment to
> random places in the lab and averaging the results.
If your experiment included a small shielded loop you could
plot the B field vs. distance from points on the radiator.
I think that might tell you a lot about what is actually going on
with the nearfield reactive components. We would expect
that to diminish by 1/r^3.
If wall reflections are evident I have to be skeptical about
what you have measured, a quarter wave removed.
I have seen a farfield outdoor test range that achives
reasonable performance by putting a 500 MHz sructure
about 10 metres above ground and carefully considering
the Fresnel zones. You might get by with 3 metres for
vertical polarizaion and nearfield measurements only.
Sue...
Sue...
BTW Your subject line,
"Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects
on Einstein Special Relativity"
reminded me:
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
So however your E and B ratios work out
you are not adressing anything about
inertia or an inertial frame of reference.
At most you confirm time dependant Maxwell's
equations.
Sue...
Sue...
BTW2
<<...analysis of the transverse electric field
generated by a dipole source is very different,
showing that the field is created about one
quarter wavelength outside the source, generating
field components which propagate
superluminally both toward and away from the
source. >> page 5 OP's paper
Tie a string to a roller skake and drag it
down a bowling alley. See if you can get
the skate into a gutter without putting
your hand over the gutter. :-(
No mechanism exist in the real world for
the transverse charge-motion you are
assuming unless you specify a conductor
in the near field.
The motion will be generally toward and
away from the center of each dipole half as
Jackson describes in word in graph.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Your sampling structures have to be better
specified both in theory and experiment.
Sue...
maxwell
> I agree that this
> clearly shows that the potentials propagate at the speed of light. But
> this is only true in the Lorentz gauge. Using other gauges (for instance
> the Coulomb gauge) the potentials can even be instantaneous. The
> potentials are simply mathematical tools which enable a simple
> calculation of the fields. The potentials are not what are directly
> measurable, the fields are. Additional calculation is required to
> determine the fields from the potentials.
rewrites. It was Maxwell's genius to invent the "vector potential" as
the key concept in his theory of EM (his other innovation - the
Displacement Current - has gone on the trash heap of history). It is
the potential (energy) that is real, not the fictitious fields (E & B)
that are used only for calculation. Only the Lorenz (not Lorentz!)
gauge is physical, reflecting conservation of charge; the Coulomb
gauge (like Coulomb's Law) is a mathematical approximation to simplify
the math - the real world is always dynamic. The only reality that is
ever measured is the location of real charges over time - everything
else is theory.
William
No, the derivation I made in my fist paper:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0603240 Does not make any Galelian
assumptions in the derivation of the superluminal near-field phase speed.
>
>
>>>>I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of
>>>>Maxwell equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the
>>>>transformations are Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So
>>>>if near-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space then
>>>>the observed effects will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no
>>>>Lorentz contraction, no time dilation), and if far-field EM
>>>>propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed
>>>>effects will follow Lorentz transformations (i.e. get Lorentz
>>>>contraction and time dilation effects).
>>>
>>>Rulers are used to measure space. Clocks are used to measure time.
>>>Far-field EM propagation (or some other signal that travels at c) can be
>>>used to _synchronise_ the clocks.
>>>
>>>If you want to use near-field phase speeds to synchronise clocks, so be
>>>it, but don't claim that the result has any bearing on SR. You end up
>>>with a clock synchronisation that depends on the position of the
>>>antenna; IMHO a clear sign that it isn't a useful convention.
>>
>>I disagree, synchronization can clearly be done using EM fields in the
>>nearfield where the invariant speed is infinity.
>
>
> Of course. You can also synchronise clocks using sound waves, runners with
> time-of-departure written on paper, etc.
No, relativity involves synchronization between stationary and moving
frames in vacuum.
The key elements of the Einstein
> synchronisation is that the signal travels both ways at c. This has two
> parts to it. Firstly, since the speed is c, it automatically gives the
> units of time, given a unit for distance. You can provide this separately,
> by choosing time units such that c has the correct value independently of
> clock synchronisation.
>
> The second part is that the synchronisation signal travels at the same
> speed both ways. Thus, your suggested superluminal phase speed
> synchronisation gives the same results as, eg, sound waves that travel at
> the same speed both ways, runners travelling at the same speed both ways -
> namely, exactly the same synchronisation as the Einstein synchronisation.
>
> Since both frames synchronised in this way are Einstein synchronised, the
> transformation between them must just be a Lorentz transformation.
>
> You could choose a synchronisation scheme that differs from the
> equal-speed-return-trip scheme, and you will obtain a non-inertial
> coordinate system - a force-free object will not travel at constant dr/dt.
> Since Lorentz transformations are transformations between inertial frames,
> what can such a coordinate system tell you about Lorentz transforms?
>
Take any Lorentz transformation derivation you want and assume the
invariant speed of the field used is infinity and you will get the
Galelian transforms. c in the Lorentz transforms will become infinity
resulting in the Galelian transforms.
This is exactly what I am saying happens in the nearfield of the EM
fields generated by a dipole source.
PD
Uh-oh.
William
Interesting idea and it could solve the problem. But from a physical
basis I don't think this is right because it is the fields that are
proportional to the forces that are detectable not the potentials. Also
as I mentioned in the discussion the potentials can propagate at
different speeds depending on the gauge that is used. It is only under
the Lorentz guage that the potentials propagate at the speed of light.
In the Coulomb gauge for instance the vector potential propagates
instantaneously. The fields on the other hand are not gauge dependent.
But I am intrigued by your idea and I will look into it.
By the way most text books use the term Lorentz transforms, but as you
have noted Lorenz is also used. Do you know why the spelling varies?
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:eschr4$5ni$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
...
> By the way most text books use the term Lorentz
> transforms, but as you have noted Lorenz is also
> used. Do you know why the spelling varies?
There should be no variance. There were two different
mathematicians in the 1800s, both of whom made contributions.
"Lorentz" is correct as applies to the transforms, "Lorenz" is
not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Lorenz
"Using his electromagnetic theory of light he stated what is
known as the Lorenz gauge condition, and was able to derive a
correct value for the velocity of light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz
... and the transforms you know.
David A. Smith
Timo A. Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> In the nearfield, you get the phase speed, approaching infinity as kr->0,
>> being invariant because of the Galilean assumptions/approximations you
>> made. You the farfield phase speed, c, being invariant because you
>> explicitly assumed it to be c in both reference frames in your derivation.
>
> No, the derivation I made in my fist paper:
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0603240 Does not make any Galelian
> assumptions in the derivation of the superluminal near-field phase speed.
Read and understand: in the rest frame of the dipole antenna, the
near-field phase speed approaches infinity as kr -> 0. You correctly
obtained this result. Congratulations! You incorrectly obtained the
result that the near-field phase speed of a moving dipole approaches
infinity as kr->0 because you made multiple Galileian assumptions, such as
absolute simultaneity, no length contraction, no and time dilation. In
particular, the assumption of absolute simultaneity immediately ensures
that infinite speeds are invariant.
What you did was do the calculation for a moving observation point, and
performed a Galilei transformation to get the (incorrect) result for a
stationary observation point and moving dipole. Are you surprised that you
got a Galilei-invariant result?
Do the correct calculation for an actual moving dipole and see what you
get!
>> Of course. You can also synchronise clocks using sound waves, runners with
>> time-of-departure written on paper, etc.
>
> No, relativity involves synchronization between stationary and moving
> frames in vacuum.
No, relativity involves synchronisation of clocks within each individual
frame, not between frames.
One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
You completely avoided the issue of whether you propose using a
synchronisation using same-2-way-speeds or something else. The former
gives you the Einstein synchronisation, and the latter gives you a
non-inertial frame.
> Take any Lorentz transformation derivation you want and assume the
> invariant speed of the field used is infinity and you will get the
> Galelian transforms. c in the Lorentz transforms will become infinity
> resulting in the Galelian transforms.
>
> This is exactly what I am saying happens in the nearfield of the EM
> fields generated by a dipole source.
It's well known that the Lorentz transforms become the Galilei transforms
as c -> infinity. That has absolutely nothing to do with the phase speed
in the the near-field of a dipole source. c is a constant, approximately
3x10^8 m/s, and is, in general, not the phase speed of electromagnetic
waves. c is the speed assumed to be invariant in special relativity, not
the phase speed of electromagnetic waves.
Note well that c is a constant within each reference frame, independent of
position and direction. The phase speed of EM waves, on the other hand, as
you very successfully demonstrate in your paper, is not.
There are 2 fundamental problems with your paper. Firstly, you don't have
the correct result for the phase speed of the EM waves from a moving
dipole, due to many Galileian assumption. Secondly, the phase speed is not
a relativistic invariant, in either Galileian relativity or special
relativity.
Autymn D. C.
> maxwell wrote:
> > It is the potential (energy) that is real, not the
> > fictitious fields (E & B) that are used only for calculation.
> Interesting idea and it could solve the problem. But from a physical
> basis I don't think this is right because it is the fields that are
> proportional to the forces that are detectable not the potentials.
Either is, if you know the mass or charge, and the spans.
William
You can synchronize clocks using near-field EM fields because they
propagate instantaneously across space. Any derivation of the
transformation relations using instantaneously propagating EM fields
will yield the Galelian transformations.
>
> You completely avoided the issue of whether you propose using a
> synchronisation using same-2-way-speeds or something else. The former
> gives you the Einstein synchronisation,
The 2-way speed for near-field EM is the same as the 1-way speed, infinity.
and the latter gives you a
> non-inertial frame.
>
>> Take any Lorentz transformation derivation you want and assume the
>> invariant speed of the field used is infinity and you will get the
>> Galelian transforms. c in the Lorentz transforms will become infinity
>> resulting in the Galelian transforms.
>>
>> This is exactly what I am saying happens in the nearfield of the EM
>> fields generated by a dipole source.
>
>
> It's well known that the Lorentz transforms become the Galilei
> transforms as c -> infinity. That has absolutely nothing to do with the
> phase speed in the the near-field of a dipole source. c is a constant,
> approximately 3x10^8 m/s, and is, in general, not the phase speed of
> electromagnetic waves.
Not true. c is the known phase speed of EM waves in the farfield. It is
given this interpretation by solving the field wave equations in the
farfield. In the nearfield I have shown that the phase speed becomes
infinite.
The phase speed of EM fields in the farfield is c and is invariant,
yielding Lorentz transformations. In the nearfield the phase speed of EM
fields is infinity and is also invariant yielding Galelian transformations.
> c is the speed assumed to be invariant in special
> relativity, not the phase speed of electromagnetic waves.
>
> Note well that c is a constant within each reference frame, independent
> of position and direction. The phase speed of EM waves, on the other
> hand, as you very successfully demonstrate in your paper, is not.
>
> There are 2 fundamental problems with your paper. Firstly, you don't
> have the correct result for the phase speed of the EM waves from a
> moving dipole, due to many Galileian assumption. Secondly, the phase
> speed is not a relativistic invariant, in either Galileian relativity or
> special relativity.
In my last paper I simply use Maxwell's equations to analyze the
propagation of the fields generated by a moving source. My only
assumption is that Maxwell's equations are correct. I then use the
results to see what relativistic theory is compatible with it. The
results clearly show that in the nearfield Maxwell's equations are
compatible with Galelian relativity and in the farfield they are
compatible with Einstein relativity. Only experiments can tell if these
results are true. But preliminary experiments do show that the phase
speed of EM fields is infinite in the nearfield and reduce to the speed
of light in the farfield, but further testing is needed.
William
Also I should mention that the dipole solution I presented in the
previous paper solves the fields directly without the use of the
potentials. Also in the derivation I show that the retarded potentials
are also built into the solution. In other words Maxwell's equations
seem to have the Lorenz gauge built in. Although the same fields can be
derived using other gauges, it appears Maxwell's equations assume the
Lorenz gauge. From this point of view it appears that the potentials
really only propagate at the speed of light.
Then the question is: which is real, the fields or the potentials. From
a physical perspective I believe we are discussing the time delay of the
force changes on a test charge or current at various distances away from
a moving source charge. In other words we are trying to determine how
long it takes for a test charge or current to respond to a change in the
position of a source charge. Since only the fields are directly
proportional to the forces, the fields must be real and the potentials
are only mathematical tools used to derive the fields.
William
> In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>Equations 27 and 28 in previous paper:
>
>
>> http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240
>
>
>>simply mean that the bracketed terms (i.e. terms on the RHS of the wave
>>equations (ref. Eq. 9,12)) need to be evaluated at the retarded time
>>(i.e. t => t-r/c). This does not necessarily mean that the fields
>>propagate at the speed of light.
>
>
> Huh? Of course it does!
>
> The thing on the right-hand side that is evaluated at retarded time is
> the state of the source.
No, for instance in the case of the B field, the thing on the RHS that
is evaluated at the retarded time is the state of the 'curl of the
current density', which is quite different from the state of the charge.
> The equations you cite imply, unambiguously,
> that the field at time t is completely determined by the state of the
> source at time t-r/c.
No, it is the 'potential' which is at time t completely determined by
the state of the source at time t-r/c. The fields are then determined
from the potentials using the appropriate operators (i.e. B = curl A).
>
> In other words: if I am one light-second away from the source, the
> field I measure now is completely determined by the behavior of the
> source one second ago. If my friend is farther away, say two light-
> seconds away from the source, the field she measures now is completely
> determined by the behavior of the source two seconds ago.
>
> That's what "propagation at the speed of light" *means*. It's not
> some complicated statement about the phase of a wave, which can be
> mocked up to do all sorts of things -- it's simply the statement that
> if a source is a distance d away, then a measurement at time t is
> determined by the source at time t-d/c.
As I posted last time, the B field generated by a dipole source is not
simply a function of t-r/c but is instead a function of:
t-(r/c)[1-1/(kr)*ArcCos{-kr/Sqrt(1+(kr)2)}]
A detailed derivation of this result can be found at the following weblink:
http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/Greensfn.pdf
You can't simply ignore the results of the dipole solution just because
they do not match your expectations. The dipole solution has been
derived in many different ways my many researchers and the superluminal
near-field effects have been experimentally observed.
maxwell
Please reread what I wrote, plus the history of science, not just
contemporary textbooks, which are usually fourth-hand rewrites of
earlier texts. Forces are theory (not observable) & used only to
calculate positions that are observable. Lorenz gauge is named after
Ludwig V. Lorenz, a Danish physicist who was a major rival to Maxwell
& pioneered the study of retarded interactions. As I said before,
other gauges are mathematical approximations (no physics)!!!
ca314159
>
> The phase speed of EM fields in the farfield is c and is invariant,
> yielding Lorentz transformations. In the nearfield the phase speed of EM
> fields is infinity and is also invariant yielding Galelian transformations.
It would be easy to state that any source 'instantaneously'
produces its signal.
Then state that any points inside the near-field may re-radiate
and so be considered as spatial extensions of the same source.
Then conclude by stating that instantaneous communications
between near-field points is possible.
What you have done then is enlarged the size of the source
to include more space but you have not shown faster than light
propagation inside or outside of that space.
Perhaps you now have a macroscopic system that displays
a very large Bohr exciton radius useful for breaking a
quantum entanglement distance record?
Timo A. Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> No, relativity involves synchronisation of clocks within each individual
>> frame, not between frames.
>>
>> One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
>> synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
>
> You can synchronize clocks using near-field EM fields because they propagate
> instantaneously across space. Any derivation of the transformation relations
> using instantaneously propagating EM fields will yield the Galelian
> transformations.
OK, you're just ignoring any comments and criticism and repeating what you
said before. If you refuse to address any of the content in replies to
you, there's little point in replying to you. So, one last time:
Yes, you can synchronise clocks _within_ a given frame using near-field EM
waves. You can use far-field EM waves, a telephone, runners in the rest
frame of the ground, acoustic signals in the rest frame of the air. Any
synchronisation using the speed of the signal being the same in both
directions gives the Einstein synchronisation. This is also the same as a
Galileian synchronisation in that frame.
The key difference between the two relativities is that special relativity
assumes that c is invariant (from which it is then shown that clocks in
relatively moving frames _cannot_ be synchronised), while Galileian
relativity assumes clock in relatively moving frames are automatically
synchronised (pretty much assuming the existence of absolute time).
Assume invariant c, you get SR. Assume synchronisation between moving
frames - essentially, assuming that the Galilei transforms hold - you get
Galileian relatively. You have assumed both of these and can choose the
effects of either by taking either the near-field or far-field limit.
However, these assumptions are mutually incompatible, and your results are
therefore flawed. The stationary dipole result is fine, but the moving
dipole result is worthless.
If you are not going to bother trying to do the moving dipole calculation
properly,
>> It's well known that the Lorentz transforms become the Galilei transforms
>> as c -> infinity. That has absolutely nothing to do with the phase speed in
>> the the near-field of a dipole source. c is a constant, approximately
>> 3x10^8 m/s, and is, in general, not the phase speed of electromagnetic
>> waves.
>
> Not true. c is the known phase speed of EM waves in the farfield. It is given
> this interpretation by solving the field wave equations in the farfield. In
> the nearfield I have shown that the phase speed becomes infinite.
What is not true? Are you saying that c is not a constant? Are you saying
that c _is_, in general, the phase speed of EM waves? Note well that
you've shown that c is _not_ the phase speed of EM waves in general.
What is the wave equation in the near-field? What is the wave equation for
EM waves in free space, anywhere outside the antenna? What constant
appears in it? Notice how you showed that the phase speed can be >c even
when c is the constant in the wave equation!
> The phase speed of EM fields in the farfield is c and is invariant, yielding
> Lorentz transformations. In the nearfield the phase speed of EM fields is
> infinity and is also invariant yielding Galelian transformations.
SR assumption: c is invariant
Galilei assumption: absolute time (or at least, absolute clock
synchronisation is possible even for relatively moving frames)
Assuming that a speed of infinity is invariant is equivalent to the above
Galileian assumption. All you have done is shown "If I assume the Galilei
transforms are correct, I get the Galilei transforms". If you're content
with that result, why bother doing all the EM calculations; you can show
Galilei transforms -> Galilei transforms much more simply. If you want to
do it properly, do the correct calculation for the moving dipole.
>> There are 2 fundamental problems with your paper. Firstly, you don't have
>> the correct result for the phase speed of the EM waves from a moving
>> dipole, due to many Galileian assumption. Secondly, the phase
>> speed is not a relativistic invariant, in either Galileian relativity or
>> special relativity.
>
> In my last paper I simply use Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagation
> of the fields generated by a moving source. My only assumption is that
> Maxwell's equations are correct.
No, that isn't your only assumption. You do the calculation for a
stationary dipole and a moving observation point. You then _assume_ that
using the Galilei transformations gives you the result for a moving dipole
and stationary observation point.
The solution is simple: just do the moving dipole calculation properly.
> I then use the results to see what
> relativistic theory is compatible with it. The results clearly show that in
> the nearfield Maxwell's equations are compatible with Galelian relativity
...because you _assumed_ the Galilei transforms are correct!
> and
> in the farfield they are compatible with Einstein relativity.
... because you assumed that c is invariant!
> Only
> experiments can tell if these results are true. But preliminary experiments
> do show that the phase speed of EM fields is infinite in the nearfield and
> reduce to the speed of light in the farfield, but further testing is needed.
It isn't a well-known result, but it's an old result, and follows directly
from the Maxwell equations, which are well tested experimentally. Playing
around with superluminal near-field phase speeds may be fun, but it isn't
going to add anything to fundamental science, since it's already known.
On the other hand, one could add something useful to science education.
Androcles
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@serene.st...
"Assume" is the operative word.
Assume Nieminen is a fuckhead and you get a fuckhead who assumes
you get an ass out of u and not me.
jt...@tele2.se
Yes and that is pretty much selfevident isn't it. Anyone with half a
brain can construct gedankens/examples that invalidate SR assumption
of invarian light. Using proper meters measuring distances in space.
However the theory of special relativity assmumes that reality is
framedependet due to Lorentz tranformation and Minkowsky spacetime.
That is of course not the case as everyone can see constructing a
gedanken in an absoulte Euclidian space with gallilean relativity.
Just plot your rest space by using any object with a spatial dimension
in a cartesian cordinate system with object O as the defined
restsspace of origo, then use it to measure enclosure speeds of
comoving object A->B->C along the x-axis, and where B send a
lightpulse that expands both negative and positive along the x-axis.
The invariance of lightspeed is the sheet that cover your eyes from
the truth.
JT
Autymn D. C.
> a moving source charge. In other words we are trying to determine how
> long it takes for a test charge or current to respond to a change in the
> position of a source charge. Since only the fields are directly
> proportional to the forces, the fields must be real and the potentials
> are only mathematical tools used to derive the fields.
Each position is interdependent with its domain. A field is thus
interdependent with its potential. Each reading needs a displacement.
Sue...
Yes... While we may have a small E-probe or B-loop in the
radiator's nearfield, the radiator is in the sampler's farfield when
the sampler's aperture in lambda, is considered for
the reciprocal path.
Sue...
William
Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, William wrote:
>
>> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, relativity involves synchronisation of clocks within each
>>> individual frame, not between frames.
>>>
>>> One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
>>> synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
>>
>>
>> You can synchronize clocks using near-field EM fields because they
>> propagate instantaneously across space. Any derivation of the
>> transformation relations using instantaneously propagating EM fields
>> will yield the Galelian transformations.
>
>
> OK, you're just ignoring any comments and criticism and repeating what
> you said before. If you refuse to address any of the content in replies
> to you, there's little point in replying to you. So, one last time:
>
> Yes, you can synchronise clocks _within_ a given frame using near-field
> EM waves.
No, I am saying that you can synchronize clocks between the rest frame
and the moving frame using instantaneous near-field EM, thereby yielding
Galelian transformations in the nearfield.
> You can use far-field EM waves, a telephone, runners in the
> rest frame of the ground, acoustic signals in the rest frame of the air.
> Any synchronisation using the speed of the signal being the same in both
> directions gives the Einstein synchronisation. This is also the same as
> a Galileian synchronisation in that frame.
>
> The key difference between the two relativities is that special
> relativity assumes that c is invariant (from which it is then shown that
> clocks in relatively moving frames _cannot_ be synchronised), while
> Galileian relativity assumes clock in relatively moving frames are
> automatically synchronised (pretty much assuming the existence of
> absolute time).
>
> Assume invariant c, you get SR. Assume synchronisation between moving
> frames - essentially, assuming that the Galilei transforms hold - you
> get Galileian relatively. You have assumed both of these and can choose
> the effects of either by taking either the near-field or far-field limit.
No, not quite, I have only assumed Maxwell's equations are correct and
use them to determine the propagation speed of the field generated by
stationary and moving dipole sources. The results show that in the
nearfield, the propagation speed is infinite in both frames, and in the
farfield the propagation speed is c in both frames.
But yes, the results show that depending on whether you use nearfield or
farfield EM fields, you get infinity or c as the invariant speed between
the frames.
>
> However, these assumptions are mutually incompatible,
Yes, this is also my point.
and your results
> are therefore flawed.
No, not necessarily, it is possible that special relativistic effects
(time dilation, Lorentz contraction) are an illusion caused by the use
of EM fields to measure these effects. It is possible that time and
space are actually inflexible as described by Galelian relativity.
Special relativity is then only simply useful in calculating the (time
dilation, Lorentz contraction) illusions.
In other words if near-field EM fields are used in an experiment to
measure space time effects between inertial frames, no time dilation or
Lorentz contraction effects will be observed. But if an experiment uses
far-field EM fields to measure space time effects between inertial
frames, then time dilation or Lorentz contraction effects will be
observed, but they are simply an illusion caused by the measurement process.
> ....because you _assumed_ the Galilei transforms are correct!
>
>> and in the farfield they are compatible with Einstein relativity.
>
>
> .... because you assumed that c is invariant!
>
>> Only experiments can tell if these results are true. But preliminary
>> experiments do show that the phase speed of EM fields is infinite in
>> the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield, but
>> further testing is needed.
>
>
> It isn't a well-known result, but it's an old result,
It is true that instantaneous action at a distance has been discussed
for many centuries and the lack of retardation in the nearfield has also
been discussed more recently by Feynman an others. But as far as I am
aware, I was the first to discover the near-field phase speed and group
speed propagation equations for a dipole source in 1999:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0001063
Since then several other researchers have confirmed my results.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0311061
http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
Also as far as I know I am now also the first to discover that the
propagation speed of EM fields from a dipole source is dependent on the
velocity of the source or the observation point.
> and follows
> directly from the Maxwell equations, which are well tested
> experimentally. Playing around with superluminal near-field phase speeds
> may be fun, but it isn't going to add anything to fundamental science,
> since it's already known.
> On the other hand, one could add something useful to science
> education.
It is quite clear from this discussion on this news server (as well as
numerous other discussions with physicists over the past 15 years) that
almost everybody is in disagreement on this phenomena.
Some say that near-field EM field propagate instantaneously, others say
that it is an illusion and that the fields only propagate at the speed
of light, others say that it is the potentials (under the Lorenz gauge)
that are real and that they clearly propagate at the speed of light.
With respect to relativity: some say that superluminal near-field EM
fields are compatible with relativity, others say that they are not
compatible with relativity because they cause causality violations.
This phenomena is not at all understood and clearly needs to be
researched and discussed until it is. Physics is very dependent on the
understanding the nature of light and how it propagates.
ca314159
I would not use the word 'illusion'. It is intrinsically misleading.
Would spinning a light house beam very fast illuminate specific
pairs of points in space faster than light could have travelled directly
between those two points? What is the shape and dimension of the set
of those points?
I've never read Poincare, but I've been told that
he's considered ideas like that.
If the speed of the source does effect the *velocity* of light
then perhaps you could derive Snell's law or some kind of
dispersion relation?
Special Relativity: Einstein's Spherical Waves versus Poincare's Ellipsoidal Waves
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004physics..11045P
We show that the image by the Lorentz transformation of a spherical (circular) light wave,
emitted by a moving source, is not a spherical (circular) light wave but an ellipsoidal
(elliptical) light wave. Poincare's ellipsoid (ellipse) is the direct geometrical
representation of Poincare's relativity of simultaneity. Einstein's spheres (circles)
are the direct geometrical representation of Einstein's convention of synchronisation.
Poincare adopts another convention for the definition of space-time units involving that
the Lorentz transformation of an unit of length is directly proportional to Lorentz transformation
of an unit of time. Poincare's relativistic kinematics predicts both a dilation of time
and an expansion of space as well.
>
> > and follows
> > directly from the Maxwell equations, which are well tested
> > experimentally. Playing around with superluminal near-field phase speeds
> > may be fun, but it isn't going to add anything to fundamental science,
> > since it's already known.
>
> > On the other hand, one could add something useful to science
> > education.
>
> It is quite clear from this discussion on this news server (as well as
> numerous other discussions with physicists over the past 15 years) that
> almost everybody is in disagreement on this phenomena.
>
> Some say that near-field EM field propagate instantaneously, others say
> that it is an illusion and that the fields only propagate at the speed
> of light, others say that it is the potentials (under the Lorenz gauge)
> that are real and that they clearly propagate at the speed of light.
>
> With respect to relativity: some say that superluminal near-field EM
> fields are compatible with relativity, others say that they are not
> compatible with relativity because they cause causality violations.
>
> This phenomena is not at all understood and clearly needs to be
> researched and discussed until it is. Physics is very dependent on the
> understanding the nature of light and how it propagates.
I used to think that too. But lately I think the fall-out from
understanding it so explosively would probably be too messy.
If you find a big picture then keep it to yourself.
Use it as a road map to solve very small parts, single file,
make them useful, make a long humble living from it,
and let the understanding take care of itself.
Sue...
[...]
> One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
> synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
Then either equal length line sampling systems
are invalid or special relativity is invalid.
Are you sure special relativity implies that?
<<As judged [free_space light path] from K, the
clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this
reference-body, the time which elapses between two
strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence
of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
Sue...
PD
> On Mar 3, 2:45 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
> > synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
>
> Then either equal length line sampling systems
> are invalid or special relativity is invalid.
AFAIK, equal length line sampling systems are not designed to
synchronize between clocks that are moving relative to each other fast
enough that the relativistic effect is larger than the resolution of
the clocks.
Sue...
> On Mar 5, 11:19 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 2:45 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
> > > synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
>
> > Then either equal length line sampling systems
> > are invalid or special relativity is invalid.
>
> AFAIK, equal length line sampling systems are not designed to
> synchronize between clocks that are moving relative to each other fast
> enough that the relativistic effect is larger than the resolution of
> the clocks.
At what speed do they stop working ?
Sue...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Are you sure special relativity implies that?
>
> > <<As judged [free_space light path] from K, the
> > clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this
> > reference-body, the time which elapses between two
> > strokes of the clock is not one second, but
>
> > 1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
>
> > seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence
> > of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
>
> > Sue...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
> On Mar 5, 12:50 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 11:19 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 2:45 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > One of the key results of special relativity is that you _can't_
> > > > synchronise clocks between relatively moving frames.
>
> > > Then either equal length line sampling systems
> > > are invalid or special relativity is invalid.
>
> > AFAIK, equal length line sampling systems are not designed to
> > synchronize between clocks that are moving relative to each other fast
> > enough that the relativistic effect is larger than the resolution of
> > the clocks.
>
> At what speed do they stop working ?
>
> Sue...
>
At the speed where the relativistic effect is larger than the
resolution of the clocks, of course.
PD