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.