What's the fundamental difference between an electric and magnetic field?

[Larry Harson]

Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
electric and a magnetic field:

1. If the direction of an accelerated charge is independent of the
direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is an
electric component to the electromagnetic force at that point.

2. If the direction of an accelerated charge is dependent upon the
direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is a
magnetic component to the electromagnetic force at that point.

Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?

Thanks in advance,

Larry.

[Poutnik]

Larry Harson posted Fri, 24 May 2013 18:10:15 -0700 (PDT)

Rather "direction of acceleration of a charge"


--
Poutnik

[Jos Bergervoet]

The real underlying reason for what you
describe is that there are nomagnetic
charges. If both magnetic and electric
charge would exist, then (following your
definition)the electric field would look
like a magnetic field for particles with
magnetic charge.

And if all particles had a fixed ratio
between electric and magnetic charge, we
could redefine the fields (by simple
linear mixing of the two) to get back to
the situation where just one of the fields
gives a velocity dependent force and only
the other field is present with static
configurations.

So it would look as if the fact that there
is only one degree of freedom in what we
call "charge", makes it possible to use
meaningfully the different concepts of
magnetic and electric field. This also
holds for gravity (one type of mass, so
gravito-magnetic fields and the plain
gravity fields are behaving more or less
similarly as in the EM case.)

But how is this in QCD? There we have three
"color charge" types. So are there still
color-magnetic fields?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35483/is-there-a-strong-force-analog-to-magnetic-fields

--
Jos

[Salmon Egg]

In article
<520ccdb8-0269-4825...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

Linguistically, this post makes no sense. It primarily consists of
run-on sentences. Semantically, it also makes little sense. For example,
a direction is attributed to a charge. Its direction is probably meant
to be a charge's acceleration. The charge itself has no direction; its
acceleration, velocity, and spin do. When asking such a question
accurate language is a necessity, and the reader should not have to
guess.

That said, from the viewpoint of special relativity, electric and
magnetic fields are components of a single entity. This entity is a
second rank tensor that is independent of an observer. The observer is a
guy or gal who measures things. Depending upon the observers who are
moving differently from one another, These observers measure various
components of the same tensor, but their motions affect the magnitudes
of what they see as electric field and magnetic field components of the
tensor.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[Larry Harson]

On May 25, 8:03 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article
> <520ccdb8-0269-4825-91f4-065d424e0...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

>  Larry Harson <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
> > electric and a magnetic field:
>
> > 1. If the direction of an accelerated charge is independent of the
> > direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is an
> > electric component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>
> > 2. If the direction of an accelerated charge is dependent upon the
> > direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is a
> > magnetic component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>
> > Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?
>
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> > Larry.
>
> Linguistically, this post makes no sense.

You need to put on the end "to me".

>It primarily consists of
> run-on sentences. Semantically, it also makes little sense. For example,
> a direction is attributed to a charge. Its direction is probably meant
> to be a charge's acceleration. The charge itself has no direction; its
> acceleration, velocity, and spin do. When asking such a question
> accurate language is a necessity, and the reader should not have to
> guess.

To me, this post comes across as the pedantic, pretentious, self-
indulgent ramblings of a pseudo-intellectual in love with himself ;)

> That said,

Do you mean "That typed", since I can't hear what you're saying?
For someone obsessed with semantics, you're rather sloppy, aren't you?

>from the viewpoint of special relativity, electric and
> magnetic fields are components of a single entity. This entity is a
> second rank tensor that is independent of an observer. The observer is a
> guy or gal who measures things. Depending upon the observers who are
> moving differently from one another, These observers measure various
> components of the same tensor, but their motions affect the magnitudes
> of what they see as electric field and magnetic field components of the
> tensor.

At least you've made an interesting contribution here. The
electromagnetic tensor has electric and magnetic components which
still need to be physically defined, otherwise it's physically vacuous
and jut a mathematical definition.

Regards, Larry.

[Larry Harson]

> color-magnetic fields?http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35483/is-there-a-strong-fo...
>
> --
> Jos

Great answer!

I don't have any understanding of particle physics, but have vaguely
comes across terms such as "neutral currents" etc.

Regards, Larry.

[FrediFizzx]

"Larry Harson" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:520ccdb8-0269-4825...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

Magnetic charge would be q*c. So what does a photon "see" when approaching
an electric charge? Does it "see" electric charge or magnetic charge or
both?

Best,

Fred Diether

[Timo Nieminen]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 11:10:15 UTC+10, Larry Harson wrote:
> Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
> electric and a magnetic field:

[...]

> Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?

Following Stratton, we have two sets of definitions:

1. In terms of sources, D depends on charge (density), H depends on current (density).

2. In terms of effects, E affects charge, B affects currents (or moving charge).

We can add some stuff about material media (or particles) with electric or magnetic dipole moments.

I think both of these are simpler definitions.

But to look at your definition, if your "accelerated" includes the case of a=0, then it's pretty general. What is lacking is a concrete idea of what "electromagnetic force at that point" means.

[Timo Nieminen]

On Sunday, 26 May 2013 05:03:27 UTC+10, Salmon Egg wrote:
>
> The observer is a
> guy or gal who measures things.

The observer is a coordinate system extending over all space, or if we want something more "physical", a set of measuring apparati over all space, able to make local measurements on command or at pre-programmed times.

The difference being that being a guy or gal implies that you are located at one position, and are at the mercy of finite time of propagation effects, whereas the coordinate system is everywhere at once.

This is part of the common bad language of relativity, where "observer" means "coordinate system" or "coordinate system + measuring apparati", while "observer" in normal-speak does mean a guy or gal looking at things.

For a practical difference, consider that the guy or gal looking at things sees a first order in v/c change in line-of-sight length of moving objects, which swamps the 2nd order Lorentz contraction.

[Poutnik]

Timo Nieminen posted Sat, 25 May 2013 23:16:01 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> > The observer is a guy or gal who measures things.
>
> The observer is a coordinate system extending over all space, or if we
> want something more "physical", a set of measuring apparati over all
> space, able to make local measurements on command or at pre-programmed
> times.

No, it is not. Observer is exactly what one expects from him,
being at single place.

Coordinate system is dead thing, only math feature to describe positions.
If we want observe huge region, we you many, or up to infinite number of
though observers.

>
> The difference being that being a guy or gal implies that you are
> located at one position, and are at the mercy of finite time of
> propagation effects, whereas the coordinate system is everywhere at
> once.

Yes, this is difference.

>
> This is part of the common bad language of relativity, where "observer"
> means "coordinate system"
> or "coordinate system + measuring apparati",
> while "observer" in normal-speak does mean a guy or gal looking at
> things.

No, this is your misunderstanding,
single observer is in SR always places at single place.

>
> For a practical difference, consider that the guy or gal looking at
> things sees a first order in v/c change in line-of-sight length of
> moving objects, which swamps the 2nd order Lorentz contraction.

--
Poutnik

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/26/2013 8:16 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 05:03:27 UTC+10, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>
>> The observer is a
>> guy or gal who measures things.
>
> The observer is a coordinate system extending over all space,

Or the observer could be a super-intelligent shade
of the color blue:
hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Hooloovoo

> or if we want something more "physical", a set of measuring apparati over all space,

Right, that would avoid all speciesism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

--
Jos

[Timo Nieminen]

On Sunday, 26 May 2013 18:41:42 UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 5/26/2013 8:16 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 May 2013 05:03:27 UTC+10, Salmon Egg wrote:
> >>
> >> The observer is a
> >> guy or gal who measures things.
> >
> > The observer is a coordinate system extending over all space,
>
> Or the observer could be a super-intelligent shade
> of the color blue:

If we don't care about sticking to the conventional definitions used in the scientific/technical literature, sure. We could also redefine "electric field" as the elasticity of pineapple jelly. Why not?

[Poutnik]

Timo Nieminen posted Sun, 26 May 2013 02:37:59 -0700 (PDT)

> > > The observer is a coordinate system extending over all space,
> >
> > Or the observer could be a super-intelligent shade of the color blue:
>
> If we don't care about sticking to the conventional definitions used in
> the scientific/technical literature, sure. We could also redefine
> "electric field" as the elasticity of pineapple jelly. Why not?

If we don't care about sticking to the conventional definitions

used in scientific/technical literature,

sure, we can sonsider observer as the coordinate system.

Why not? :-)


--
Poutnik

[Salmon Egg]

In article <d16656c8-d6aa-4b6b...@googlegroups.com>,

For my internal thinking, I think of the :observer" to be a master
observer in one spot in his own coordinate system. The observer has many
subordinate technicians or slave observers spread around the coordinate
system described above. Each tech has his own measuring apparatus. This
includes a clock synchronized to the master observer using appropriate
correction for time signal delay from the master. Locationa of these
techs has been obtained by by placing "meter sticks" end to end from the
master's location.

The slave observers can then "touch" events in their own vicinity with
no time delay. They report to the master. The master can then correct
for relativistic effects of any process that is moving with respect to
the master's coordinate system. If one master sees a static electrical
field, another master, moving with respect to the first, will see a
modified electric field along with a magnetic field due to the relative
motion. The same electromagnetic tensor is measured by both masters. By
using the Lorentz transformation, each master can determine their own
combination of tensor components, electric or magnetic, as based upon
any other master's measurement.

For some people, a model of a stress tensor may enlighten. Stress at one
point is a combination of tensile and shear stress. The components of
the stress tensor depends upon the coordinate system used to define
shear and tension. If you take a piece of ordinary chalk and twist it
without bending, it will break at 45 degrees with respect to the axis.
You can think of shear and tension to be somewhat analogous to magnetic
field and electric field.

Historically, Maxwell's equations were not written as the vector
equations we know and love now. Someday I expect, the concept of
separate electric and magnetic fields will be as quaint as the original
Maxwell equations do now.

[benj]

"Larry Harson" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message

>> Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
>> electric and a magnetic field:
>>
>> 1. If the direction of an accelerated charge is independent of the
>> direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is an
>> electric component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>>
>> 2. If the direction of an accelerated charge is dependent upon the
>> direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is a
>> magnetic component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>>
>> Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?

My view (not that it matters here) is that a great deal of detail is
known about EM effects and phenomena. There is a certain amount of
redundancy as well, meaning that many things can often be calculated
several ways where all give the "correct" answer. But what is missing is
an overall cogent simple model of electromagnetic phenomena. To me, the
situation is very analogous to the days of the astronomical method of
epicycles vs sun-centered view. The phenomena is obviously the same in
both cases and the epicycle calculations were all correct enough, but the
difference effected by a simple change of viewpoint was vast! My view is
EM needs a model that give that change of viewpoint. So far I have seen
no credible model that does that though I do think some progress has been
made in that regard (by Jefimenko and some others).

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/26/2013 7:42 PM, benj wrote:
> "Larry Harson"<larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
>>> electric and a magnetic field:

...

>>> Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?

...
> ... So far I have seen

> no credible model that does that though I do think some progress has been
> made in that regard (by Jefimenko and some others).

So, what did Jefimenko (and some others) see
as the fundamental difference between an electric
and a magnetic field? Or did he (and some others)
not yet make quite enough progress to answer
Larry's question?

--
Jos

[benj]

So far as I can see there has not been enough progress to answer the
question. For example, Jefimenko's "causal" equations for E and H fields
have both charge density (rho) and current density (J) as sources. H
fields only have current density. But as I see it current is just motion
of charges. So the thing is not yet solved. And we have the Lorentz
transforms that yield different field values depending on the motion of
the observer. And that has led some to surmise that electric and magnetic
effects are just the "same" thing. I really don't believe that to be
true, but it could be. But what is still missing is some different way of
looking at all this that puts every observation in it's place in some
simple model. I haven't seen it yet. Have you?

[Timo Nieminen]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 10:36:11 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> And we have the Lorentz
> transforms that yield different field values depending on the motion of
> the observer. And that has led some to surmise that electric and magnetic
> effects are just the "same" thing. I really don't believe that to be
> true, but it could be. But what is still missing is some different way of
> looking at all this that puts every observation in it's place in some
> simple model. I haven't seen it yet. Have you?

d'Alembertian(A)=J, 4-div(J)=0, 4-div(A) = 0 is pretty simple. Try to come up with a simpler set of 4D 2nd order PDEs that agrees with observations of EM! Simple model, yes?

[benj]

Well, yes and no. So if you set a Lorentz gauge you end up with a couple
of super-simple looking equations. Cool, But the d'Alembertian operator
in there represents some massive matrix multiplication. So have you
really "simplified" things or have you just whitewashed the fence to
cover up the underlying complexities. I don't see where any
simplification or understanding suggests itself from this formulation in
spite of the fact that invariance under Lorentz transformations seems
like some kind of progress.

[Szczepan Bialek]

Użytkownik "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:zQrot.58489$pU6....@newsfe10.iad...

You are right. EM is like the epicycles.
But You should know that "sun-centered view" was waiting 250 years to go
into textbooks.
The correct model of Electrodynamics was made by Ampere and others 180 years
ago.
You must wait 70 years, or read it now in oryginal papers.
S*

[Larry Harson]

On May 26, 6:49 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Larry Harson" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

>
> news:520ccdb8-0269-4825...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
> > electric and a magnetic field:
>
> > 1. If the direction of an accelerated charge is independent of the
> > direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is an
> > electric component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>
> > 2. If the direction of an accelerated charge is dependent upon the
> > direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is a
> > magnetic component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>
> > Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?
>
> Magnetic charge would be q*c.

What do you mean by "magnetic charge"?

>So what does a photon "see" when approaching
> an electric charge?  Does it "see" electric charge or magnetic charge or
> both?

A photon doesn't have a rest frame so I don't think it's correct to
speculate on a photon "seeing". I'm looking for a basic classical
description of the difference between electric and magnetic fields,
rather than a quantum one involving photons.

Regards, Larry.

[Larry Harson]

On May 26, 6:42 pm, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>  "Larry Harson" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

>
> >> Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
> >> electric and a magnetic field:
>
> >> 1. If the direction of an accelerated charge is independent of the
> >> direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is an
> >> electric component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>
> >> 2. If the direction of an accelerated charge is dependent upon the
> >> direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is a
> >> magnetic component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>
> >> Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?

> My view (not that it matters here)

It does to me, that's why I asked everyone for their opinion.

>is that a great deal of detail is
> known about EM effects and phenomena. There is a certain amount of
> redundancy as well, meaning that many things can often be calculated
> several ways where all give the "correct" answer. But what is missing is
> an overall cogent simple model of electromagnetic phenomena. To me, the
> situation is very analogous to the days of the astronomical method of
> epicycles vs sun-centered view. The phenomena is obviously the same in
> both cases and the epicycle calculations were all correct enough, but the
> difference effected by a simple change of viewpoint was vast! My view is
> EM needs a model that give that change of viewpoint. So far I have seen
> no credible model that does that though I do think some progress has been
> made in that regard (by Jefimenko and some others).

So what do you think is the fundamental difference between and
electric and magnetic field?

We need to define these first, since our model will use these
definitions.

Regards, Larry.

[Larry Harson]

On May 26, 7:11 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 May 2013 11:10:15 UTC+10, Larry Harson  wrote:
> > Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
> > electric and a magnetic field:
> [...]
> > Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?
>
> Following Stratton, we have two sets of definitions:
>
> 1. In terms of sources, D depends on charge (density), H depends on current (density).

I'd say D also depends on current since it depends on the velocity of
a moving charge.

> 2. In terms of effects, E affects charge, B affects currents (or moving charge).

I'd say E affects moving charge and therefore currents as well.

> We can add some stuff about material media (or particles) with electric or magnetic dipole moments.
>
> I think both of these are simpler definitions.

By current, maybe Stratton means moving charge whose electric field is
cancelled by an opposing electric field from stationary charges.

> But to look at your definition, if your "accelerated" includes the case of a=0, then it's pretty general. What is lacking is a concrete idea of what "electromagnetic force at that point" means.

Typo, you meant v=0?

Since an electron can be accelerated by forces other than
electromagnetic, then it's essential to also include sources, which
I'll now include:

1. Electromagnetic forces cause charge to accelerate, and consist of
two types: Electric forces are created by and act upon both a moving
and stationary charge. Magnetic forces are created by and act upon
only moving charge.

From this, it still isn't obvious to me how the magnetic force
component can be unambiguously separated from the electric component.
Which means still appealing to the lorentz force equation for
additional information:

d/dt(gamma m v) = q(E + vxB)

The acceleration of the charge q depends upon its velocity for both E
and B. But the acceleration contributed by E is independent of the
direction of v of the charge q, unlike that for B, and that seems to
be a crucial difference between E and B.

In the original post, I used the direction of acceleration to
distinguish between E and B, which isn't general enough upon
reflection, which now gives:

2. The electric force causes a charge to accelerate independently of
the direction of its velocity, a magnetic force doesn't.

Regards, Larry.

[FrediFizzx]

"Larry Harson" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:675b9769-b4ee-4c8c...@o10g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

> On May 26, 6:49 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Larry Harson" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:520ccdb8-0269-4825...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Here's what I consider to be the fundamental difference between an
>> > electric and a magnetic field:
>>
>> > 1. If the direction of an accelerated charge is independent of the
>> > direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is an
>> > electric component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>>
>> > 2. If the direction of an accelerated charge is dependent upon the
>> > direction of its velocity at some point in space, we say there is a
>> > magnetic component to the electromagnetic force at that point.
>>
>> > Do you guys agree, or are there simpler definitions?
>>
>> Magnetic charge would be q*c.
>
> What do you mean by "magnetic charge"?

If magnetic monopoles existed, they would have units of q*c thus magnetic
charge. So relative to a photon (or EM radiation), the electric charge is
approaching it at the speed of light.

>>So what does a photon "see" when approaching
>> an electric charge? Does it "see" electric charge or magnetic charge or
>> both?
>
> A photon doesn't have a rest frame so I don't think it's correct to
> speculate on a photon "seeing". I'm looking for a basic classical
> description of the difference between electric and magnetic fields,
> rather than a quantum one involving photons.

Ok, just change it to EM radiation approaching a charge at c. So is c the
difference between electric and magnetic fields?

Best,

Fred Diether

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/27/2013 5:29 PM, Larry Harson wrote:
...

> In the original post, I used the direction of acceleration to
> distinguish between E and B, which isn't general enough upon
> reflection, which now gives:
>
> 2. The electric force causes a charge to accelerate independently of
> the direction of its velocity, a magnetic force doesn't.

Those are true facts but are they the fundamental
difference? I see the difference more in the fact
that B is the rotation while E is the derivative
of something.

If you don't work in 3+1 dimensions this shows more
clearly: in 2+1 dimensions E has 2 components but
B has only one. In 1+1 dimensions there is no B at
all!

An interesting remaining questions is of course what
this "something" is. We can call it a gauge field
but what *is* it?! It seems to be something that
corrects for phase errors between the electron wave
function at different points in space. Is that how
space works? Is it like an array of FPGA's where a
calibration mechanism is correcting the mismatch in
delay of the interconnecting IO circuits?

Gerard Westendorp used to create analogies like that:
http://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/

--
Jos

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> napisal w wiadomosci
news:51a44e99$0$15959$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

"In the nineteenth century, aether theory was hot science. People like
Lorentz, Heaveside, Kelvin have worked on it. They made various mechanical
models, in which the aether was some elastic medium."

For all of them the aether was like the solid dielectric.

But in XIX centure were people for which the aether is like rare plasma.
The first was Faraday. The next L. Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac.
The mechanical model of such aether was developed by Cauchy and Stokes.
The rare plazma rotate with the Sun as the Heliosphere.
Do you know that?
S*

[Larry Harson]

On May 28, 7:28 am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 5:29 PM, Larry Harson wrote:
>   ...
>
> > In the original post, I used the direction of acceleration to
> > distinguish between E and B, which isn't general enough upon
> > reflection, which now gives:
>
> > 2. The electric force causes a charge to accelerate independently of
> > the direction of its velocity, a magnetic force doesn't.
>
> Those are true facts but are they the fundamental
> difference?

Actually I think I was right first time, and wrong here.

Even for the electric field, the magnitude of the acceleration depends
upon the velocity of the charge because of the d/dt (\gamma mv) on the
LHS of the lorentz force equation:

d/dt(mY vec_u) = (mY^3/c^2 a_Dot_u vec_u) + (mY vec_a) = qE + q vec_v
x vec_B

Even so, the direction of the acceleration only has to point in the
same direction as the vector on the RHS, which is independent of
velocity for E.

>I see the difference more in the fact
> that B is the rotation while E is the derivative
> of something.

Classically, the potentials aren't physical, quantum mechanically they
are so I believe.

> If you don't work in 3+1 dimensions this shows more
> clearly: in 2+1 dimensions E has 2 components but
> B has only one. In 1+1 dimensions there is no B at
> all!
>
> An interesting remaining questions is of course what
> this "something" is. We can call it a gauge field
> but what *is* it?! It seems to be something that
> corrects for phase errors between the electron wave
> function at different points in space.

I see your point. To have a deeper understanding of the potentials, we
need to look outside of classical electrodynamics.

> Is that how
> space works? Is it like an array of FPGA's where a
> calibration mechanism is correcting the mismatch in
> delay of the interconnecting IO circuits?
>
> Gerard Westendorp used to create analogies like that:
>      http://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/
>

The same is true for a charge travelling at a constant velocity, where
the velocity dependent terms of the EM field ensure the direction of
the electromagnetic force points from its present rather than retarded
position to ensure Lorentz invariance.

Regards, Larry.

[benj]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:28:41 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> On 5/27/2013 5:29 PM, Larry Harson wrote:
> ...
>> In the original post, I used the direction of acceleration to
>> distinguish between E and B, which isn't general enough upon
>> reflection, which now gives:
>>
>> 2. The electric force causes a charge to accelerate independently of
>> the direction of its velocity, a magnetic force doesn't.

> An interesting remaining questions is of course what this "something"
> is. We can call it a gauge field but what *is* it?! It seems to be
> something that corrects for phase errors between the electron wave
> function at different points in space. Is that how space works? Is it
> like an array of FPGA's where a calibration mechanism is correcting the
> mismatch in delay of the interconnecting IO circuits?
>
> Gerard Westendorp used to create analogies like that:
> http://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/

Wow, Jos. What a cool website! Bunch of cool stuff! I've never seen
fields modeled as an infinite sheet loop array 2D network before!
Interesting concept. Sort of like an extension of circuit C and L model
of transmission lines.

[Larry Harson]

There's a link to ether theory, and for a moment I thought a crackpot
was masquerading as Jos. Fortunately, what's said in the link is
correct: Ether theory is OK, as long as it models reality correctly,
as with Lorentz Ether Theory.

Regards, Larry.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Larry Harson" <larry...@softhome.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:658748c8-b636-4854...@i4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

You are an opposite opinion than Michelson:
" Stokes has given a theory of aberration which assumes the ether at the
earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the latter, and only requires
in addition that the relative velocity have a potential; but Lorentz shows
that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz then proposes a modification
which combines some ideas of Stokes and Fresnel, and assumes the existence
of a potential, together with Fresnel's coefficient. If now it were
legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with
regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a
velocity potential, and his own theory also fails."
From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

To be precise Stokes assumes that the ether is at at rest at the surfaces of
all planets. It means that the ether and the Heliosphera are the same. It
rotates with the Sun.
In Lorentz Ether Theory the aether was like solid dielectric.
S*