Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity

9 views
Skip to first unread message

William

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 9:20:14 AM2/20/07
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 9:29:16 AM2/20/07
to
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.

You are mistaken.

Sue...

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 9:38:47 AM2/20/07
to

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...

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 9:40:37 AM2/20/07
to

Sam... You are a parrot.

Sue...


Androcles

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 10:02:27 AM2/20/07
to

"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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 10:12:02 AM2/20/07
to


When you are talking about the nearfield propagation,
are you still talking about the propagation in a free-space vacuum?

William

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 10:23:01 AM2/20/07
to

- 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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 10:30:12 AM2/20/07
to


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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 10:49:45 AM2/20/07
to
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. >>
> 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...

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 11:06:16 AM2/20/07
to
On Feb 20, 10:49 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 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. >>
> >http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity...

> > 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-le...

> >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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 11:12:30 AM2/20/07
to

"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...

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 11:22:58 AM2/20/07
to
On Feb 20, 10:49 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 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. >>
> >http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity...

> > 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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 12:29:37 PM2/20/07
to

Just one question. Please explain how you think these findings, if
correct, would be incompatible with relativity?

.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 1:47:19 PM2/20/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 2:23:46 PM2/20/07
to
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?

> 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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 3:17:16 PM2/20/07
to

"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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 3:38:58 PM2/20/07
to
On Feb 20, 10:23 am, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au>
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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 4:04:06 PM2/20/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 4:12:29 PM2/20/07
to
Check out Jackson, Chapt. 7. In regions of anomalous dispersion group
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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 4:27:47 PM2/20/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 4:55:14 PM2/20/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 5:26:56 PM2/20/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 6:46:37 PM2/20/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 7:16:20 PM2/20/07
to
Sure, you're welcome. BTW, your reference is newer and more extensive
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...

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 12:22:11 AM2/21/07
to

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...

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 12:25:46 AM2/21/07
to
On Feb 20, 6:46 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[...]

Scallops ! :-)
http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/navaids/tacan/tacan1.htm

Sue...

William

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 3:51:09 AM2/21/07
to
Sue... wrote:


>
> 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

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 5:17:30 AM2/21/07
to
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


>> 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

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 10:05:28 AM2/21/07
to
On Feb 21, 4:17 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> 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

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

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 11:35:13 AM2/21/07
to
Superluminal interactions in near-field optics
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

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 11:46:16 AM2/21/07
to
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. I know you can't
because it throws Maxwell's equations right out the window.


Ace0f_5pades

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 12:33:37 PM2/21/07
to

Androcles

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 4:50:03 PM2/21/07
to

"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

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 5:49:26 PM2/21/07
to
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.

Steve Carlip

karand...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 8:54:57 PM2/21/07
to

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

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 4:13:32 AM2/22/07
to

It does not explain how the phase velocity can exceed c!

William

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 5:41:57 AM2/22/07
to

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:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240

Igor

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 12:52:15 PM2/22/07
to
On Feb 21, 4:50 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 1:06:58 PM2/22/07
to
Sue... wrote:
> 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.
>> You are mistaken.
>
> Sam... You are a parrot.
>
> Sue...
>
>

That's a compliment, Dennis!

Timo A. Nieminen

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 1:57:25 PM2/22/07
to
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.

>>> 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 4:45:50 PM2/22/07
to
On Feb 22, 10:13 pm, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
> It does not explain how the phase velocity can exceed c!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 6:00:52 PM2/22/07
to

"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

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 7:12:40 PM2/22/07
to

Thanks for the paper. I will take a look at it.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 23, 2007, 8:46:58 AM2/23/07
to
Eric Gisse wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 6:11:25 AM2/27/07
to
Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> 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...

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 6:46:22 AM2/27/07
to
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 ?

<< 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2007, 7:22:39 PM2/27/07
to
On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

(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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 2:16:16 AM2/28/07
to
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, William wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 2:30:44 AM2/28/07
to
On Wed, 27 Feb 2007, nu...@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.

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...

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 3:02:59 AM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 2:30 am, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 5:57:28 AM2/28/07
to
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. 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 6:01:49 AM2/28/07
to

"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...

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 7:02:36 AM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 5:57 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 6:16:36 PM2/28/07
to
In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, of course. So you don't look at the potentials, you look at the
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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 7:13:24 PM2/28/07
to


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

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 7:16:18 PM2/28/07