Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/06/04
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:18:34 GMT
"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2v3ksqF2fgu5pU1@uni-berlin.de...
:
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:Im%id.39597$Bk6.31834@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:2v26dpF2gt4skU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > :
: > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:NqPid.24857$Fu2.17480@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : >
: > : > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > news:2v0v1tF2f9qejU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : Reference:
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gauge.html
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CoulombForce.html
: > : > : http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/E105/spinning-balls.html
: > : > :
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SI.html
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/cgs.html
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MKS.html
: > : > :
: > : > : --------------
: > : > : Exerpt:
: > : > : {
: > : > : B is the magnetic field vector, and is a differential unit
of
: > area
: > : > : pointing perpendicular to the surface S. Knowing allows the
: > : > : electromotive force produced in a current ring with S as
its
: > : > boundary
: > : > : to be computed using Faraday's law as
: > : > : Therefore, an electromotive force is created only when the
flux
: > : > changes
: > : > : with time, which means only when B or change with time.
: > : > : The unit of magnetic flux is the Weber.
: > : > : } © Eric W. Weisstein
: > : > : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticFlux.html
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : Background:
: > : > : > Now let's examine macroscopic effects for the moment.
: > : > : > I'll reiterate that the electron will go the anode and
expect
: > no
: > : > : > challenge to that, and also that it will remain suspended
in
: > the
: > : > : > centre
: > : > : > of the cavity with no forces applied. As I increase the
: > voltage
: > : > : > between
: > : > : > anode and cathode I'll accelerate electrons from the
cathode
: > to
: > : > the
: > : > : > anode.
: > : > : > It will also be accelerated at right angles by the
magnetic
: > field.
: > : > :
: > : > : Spiral perhaps?
: > : > :
: > : >
: >
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/e+%20annihilation.png
: > : >
: > : > No anode, that's cheating.
: > : Dratt! Foiled again!
: > : It does however seem a valid representation of an electron
: > interacting magnetically. A Coulomb field isn't going to erase
the
: > : spiral component, it will just stretch it out into a helix.
: >
: > Sure... but why does the electron come to rest?
: In the buble chamber it bind's with an atom.
: In the Penning trap:
: << The truth is that still many questions are open about what
actually happens is such a Penning trap. Experiments are underway to
: test a new approach in a nested Penning trap of 'stimulating'
antihydrogen formation with laser light.
: Yet another approach has surfaced lately for making antihydrogen:
recombination due to fast switching electric fields. The principle
: is to distort the Coulomb potential of the antiproton by adding an
electric field. The electric field results in lowering the
: potential on one side ('saddle point') of the antiproton and
increasing it on the other side. Positrons that approach the saddle
: point can be bound for some time with reduced energy. If one
switches the electric field off during that time, the original Coulomb
: potential restores again (increases on the side of the saddle
point), and the positron can be captured if it is of low enough
: energy. >>
: http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch/antihydrogen/production.html
:
Let me know when they make the antihydrogen bomb, I'll find another
planet to live on.
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : > If the electron is a bar magnet, why is it not accelerated
to
: > the
: > : > side
: > : > : > if
: > : > : > I remove the voltage?
: > : > : It probably is. But you don't know it's magnetic
orientation.
: > : >
: > : >
: >
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/e+%20annihilation.png
: > : > Which way is the field?
: > : If your monitor is X and Y the magnetic flux lines are parallel
to
: > the Z axis.
: >
: > Yep. So are all the electrons axes aligned in Z?
: Since material entities tend to share their coupling to
gravitational and magnetic flux lines, wouldn't it be more correct to
say
: they are all aligned to the same degree, assuming the laboratory's
exciting field produces a homogeneous flux density? If you
: accept that our planet's axis is aligned to the north star in spite
of it's wobble... then I think you could say that.
Well yeah... the wobble having a 25,000 year cycle I'm not all that
bothered.
If I lived in the late neolithic or early bronze age I might still be
tempted to construct a henge aligned to the sun rising through a notch
in the hills and
leave it to you lot to figure out why you thought I had it wrong.
What we do know is that archeologists use ancient fires and geologists
use
ancient lava deposits to date events based on the magnetic alignment
of materials. This is making use of the magnetic poles wandering.
Sea floor spreading is deduced from mirrored reversals of the rocks,
and the indication that the Earth's field reverses occasionally.
http://www.gcsechemistry.com/pwav61.htm
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Can I also "balance" it's North pole to do the same?
: > : > : > : No. It's north pole is only defined as "not the south
pole"
: > : > : > : As R.P Feynman pointed out in one of his lectures, An
alien
: > : > : > civilization
: > : > : > : could not manufacture a compass for use on earth from
any
: > type
: > : > of
: > : > : > : drawing or description. They would have to have a
sample,
: > known
: > : > to
: > : > : > be
: > : > : > : correct on earth, to know which end of the pointer to
paint.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I don't care what Feynmann says about labels. I'm trying
to
: > pin
: > : > down
: > : > : > what you are saying about electrons spinning to become bar
: > : > magnets.
: > : >
: > : > : I don't know that anything actually spins, but a magnetic
: > observer
: > : > can
: > : > : sense a directional characteristic. An energy observer (pair
: > : > : creation/annhilation) can sense that energy is stored !! as
: > though
: > : > !!
: > : > : in a spinning top. It seems actually to be stored in the
: > : > permeability
: > : > : and permittivity of free space and not the inertia of a
rotating
: > : > mass.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Seems?
: > : > I think that "seems" actually means "Sue's mental model". I've
got
: > a
: > : > serious
: > : > problem with that bubble box diagram, too. Someone's been
playing
: > with
: > : > their crayons, 'cos I don't think there are any bubbles where
the
: > : > orangey
: > : > bit labelled 'photon' is.
: > : > The energy "seems", ( i.e. according to my mental model) to be
: > stored
: > : > in the
: > : > E and B fields which are alternating 90 degrees out of phase,
and
: > that
: > : > photon
: > : > would be there whether there was bubble juice in the box or
not.
: > : >
: > : No appologies here. AFAIK folks that get paid for doing this
have to
: > use the word "seem" too. I realize some will insist that there
: > : really is a rotating mass component but I know of no proof. I
: > """seems""" a chicken and egg conundrum. Does the rotating field
imbue
: > : the entitiy with mass or is there something mass-like about the
: > field. I tend toward the former explanation for two reasons.
: > : 1) spinning masses tend to fly apart.
: > : 2) The Meisner effect levitation demo looks exactly like how an
: > electron would share the energy between potential and speed.
: > : If the magnetic field collapses then the spinning field speeds
up.
: > (Lenz's law of counter EMF) The faster electric field rotates,
: > : the greater the magnetic field.
: > : So no rotating mass is required.
: > : What is it you're always quoting from Newton about adding
: > unnecessary parts?
: > : Either way, an e+ e- pair has to gravitate toward it's mates
with a
: > 1.022 MeV acceleration as a result of the magical dance.
: > :
: > : Of late, I am not convinced the B field would be there absent
the
: > "bubble juice" (some kind of matter). That surely isn't a popular
: > : theory but it has possibilies to explain the difficultly we have
in
: > conjuring up leptons from pure gamma radiation and also seems to
: > : explain the disparity between near and far field E/B ratios.
: >
: > No bubble juice in my TV tube, but the electrons are deflected,
big
: > time.
: > The only bit that makes 'em do it is those coils at the neck.
: >
: >
: > :
: > : > : Things get blurry here. Which entity actually has a
: > gravitational
: > : > field?
: > : >
: > : > Yep... and what is the direction of the g-field, what happened
to
: > it
: > : > when the positron hit the electron to produce the photon, and
how
: > did
: > : > it come back? I'm inclined to think the photon never lost it.
: >
: > : I think it's safe to say it is isotropic and directly
proportional
: > to the enegy stored in the particle.
: > : Yep, you and Einstein both think the photon never lost it. I
can't
: > offer proof otherwise, but I don't accept Pound-Rebka or
: > : Eddington either.
: > : I'd like to see a really high power laser switched on near a
: > Cavendish balance. That would be convincing, if the balance moved.
: >
: > Can't ignore empirical data.
: > http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap040217.html
: "whole clusters of galaxies" isn't my idea of a high quality vacuum.
It isn't? I'd call the space 10 feet above the surface of the moon a
good quality vacuum, interstellar space a great quality vacuum and
interGALACTIC space a super-duper-best-you'll-ever-get ultra high
quality vacuum. I guess there's no pleasing some people.
Thar is plenty of stuff in that pitchure for the little Coulomb
: creatures to shake hands with, slowin' em down.
Thar's a whole lot more nothing than stuff in them thar pitchers.
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : Which entity's angular momentum is electromagnetic and which
is
: > : > : mechanical kinetic energy.
: > : > :
: > : > : Muon g-2 http://www.bnl.gov/g2muon/
: > : > : http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/g-2_backgrounder.htm
: > : > :
: > : > : > Short of answering "well, obviously it does", WHY does the
: > moving
: > : > : > electron have an acceleration at right-angles to the
E-field?
: > : > :
: > : >
: >
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/Jon_Drobnis/curveball.html
: > : > : http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/E105/spinning-balls.html
: > : > :
: > : > :-)
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : > Do raindrops
: > : > : > fall straight down when the wind blows? If so, is there a
: > magnetic
: > : > : > "flux" that corresponds to the wind, blowing the electron
: > : > sideways?
: > : > :
: > : > : > Does the electron move sideways if it isn't moving toward
the
: > : > anode as
: > : > : > well?
: > : > : There is no anode or cathode if the electron is not moving.
It
: > is
: > : > the
: > : > : motion of the electron and the charge of the plates is
: > inseperable.
: > : > No ?
: > : Sorry... I was tired when I wrote that and now can't read it
myself.
: > : How in H*** did you get enough data to venture a No?
: >
: > It was your "No?" :-)
: BLUSH...
: >
: [snip exerpt]
: > :
: >
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Penning_trap
: > : http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/ion/penning/penning.htm
: > :
: >
http://athena-positrons.web.cern.ch/ATHENA-positrons/wwwathena/penning.html
: > :
: [snip exerpt]
: > :
: >
http://www.physics.udel.edu/~mitchell/journal_articles/mitt98babstract.htm
: > :
: >
: >
: > Yep.
: > Androcles
: You are not the one ask, :o) because you have visions of magnetic
loops licking out across space like a frog's tongue, but take the
: other side of that notion for a moment eyeball these:
:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/polarizedlight/emwave/electromagneticwavefigure1.jpg
: animation:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/polarizedlight/emwave/
: From: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/polarizedlight/emwave/
:
: Now... we know most of these illustrations are incorrect wrt
amplitude as few show any path loss ( 1/d^2).
:
: And you have pointed or the phase error in one like:
:
http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/nature_of_an_electromagnetic_wav.htm
: Which is incorrect for both amplitude and phase.
You can clearly see in the animation that ZERO energy is arriving at
the detector, alternating with double energy.
By phase-shifting the E and B fields the energy is constant.
It should be like this:
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CorrectWave.JPG
(Excuse my rough drawing.)
I accept conservation of energy. I KNOW that current and voltage are
NOT in phase as the diagram shows them to be in the animation.
cos^2 + sin^2 = 1, straightforward Pythagoras. No magical aether
required.
Transmitters are designed to radiate energy. Transformers are designed
to contain it. We don't put great lumps of iron around antenna.
: But try to imagine one of these stretched between emitter and
detector (material objectes composed of spinning entities throught a
: perfect vacuum. Is there any observational evidence that the B field
can even exist more than few wavelengths from the emitter or
: detector?
Yes. We can communicate with Cassini which is orbiting Saturn and the
wavelength is less than 9.5 AU.
1/d^2 applies, UNLESS you focus the signal into a beam. Then you can
throw it away. There's a good reason to put a parabolic dish on the
wrong side of the antenna.
Can't it diminish to zero in a few wavelength then reconstitute itself
as it approaches[1] the material detector?
Yes, if it driven by the E-field which is at a maximum when the
B-field
is zero, because then neither is zero at the same instant and both
diminish
to zero (twice) in ONE wavelength. If BOTH are zero at the same
instant
then energy is either not conserved or stored in aether.
When the B field hits the antenna, it drives a current up the pole.
That current is in phase with the B-field. It will cease when the St
Elmo's fire sparks away from the antenna tip. There is a time delay,
just as charging a capacitor. We talk about the "time constant" of an
RC circuit. Current leads voltage. The reason sal thought the signal
was arriving before it was sent
is the current leading the voltage. He'd have a time machine if he
could really get it to work that way.
:
: To say that the B field exists, absent any matter "seems" to
obligate the proponent to identifiy some property or mechanism of
: empty space which can perform the same 90 degree translation that
spinning entities perform in a fashion we have a pretty good
: understanding of.
:
: IOW, where are the "spin faries", Virtaul Particle foams and ether
grids? Would Newton say these are some more unnecessary parts
: that we can leave out of the design?
The "spin fairy" is the rotating constant energy (radius) vector.
If those diagrams were correct, the E and B fields would contain the
energy as compressed aether.
Newton would definitely reject virtual particles, and we know he
rejected aether.
Newton created the mathematics needed to describe Nature. That
demonstrates true understanding.
People like sal and Andersen stare at equations others have misused
(notably Einstein) and try to make Nature behave the way those
equations say it will. Nature doesn't care.
Andersen is an "assistant professor" teaching students from a book,
explaining what the author meant, whether the author was right or
wrong. sal is a self-confessed failed hardware engineer, and the
reason for his failure is his lack of understanding of physics.
Androcles.
: Kind regards,
: Sue...
: [1] This sounds heretical but, recall... folks are tying themselves
in knots to enforce a speed limit that really only applies to
: the transfer of mass or energy. The formation of advance and
retarded potentials doesn't involve any energy transfer. As you eluded
: in you statement about mutually coupled inductors and as in
"quanturm coupling" experiments (tunneling, Aharonov-Bohm), FTL
magnetic
: couplings are a better explanation than probabilistic magic in the
statistical soup.
: >
: >
: >
: [snip poles and bees]
:
:
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
