Re: Tell me why Einstein's SR was wrong.


Randy Poe wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Doune wrote:
ii) The laws of physics will be valid for all observers.
A charged comb and pith ball experiment will not be
the same in a physics classroom and in an electrostatic
spray paint booth.

1) The same laws of physics govern both. Can you understand
the distinction between "the laws of physics" and "the outcome of
an experiment"?
Indeed... But what does SR predict for both?

That both will follow Maxwell's equations. In particular, that
a moving observer will see moving charges, magnetic
fields, and interaction between currents, while a stationary
observer will describe the situation as purely electrostatic.
The magnetic force has range described by 1/r^3.
That is a plausible interpretation of SR if you incorporated
that fact.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html


Both will observe the same events to occur.

Both will say that Maxwell's equations predict different
behavior in the two different experiments.

2) Two different experiments by the same observer is not the
same thing as one experiment seen by two different observers.
Are pith balls only good for single use application?

No. What does that have to do with my statement?

An experiment IN an external electric field is a different
experiment than one NOT in an external electric field.
There's nothing wrong with doing both experiments.
There is something wrong with claiming that they're
the same experiment.

The problem is that the PoR doesn't adaquately
disclaim the observers near-field interaction. Moving
charged particles of paint are an easy illustration for
some to visualise a PoR violation.


The laws of physics -- Maxwell's equations --
Which Maxwell's equations do you mean?
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
apply to
both, for all observers. As they are different experiments
with different initial conditions, the laws of physics do not
require they have the same outcome.

If the PoR has exempts a charged observer or a
significantly massive observer, then you are correct.
I don't believe it does as conceived by SR.

Sue...


I boil water. I boil mercury. Do you think the laws of
physics require I get the same boiling point for both
experiments?

- Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Does Light Always Move at c WRT its Source?
    ... |> almost single handedly stuffed up the rest of physics.. ... But if the source is moving toward the observer at 2.998 x 10^8 m/s, ... Well, we need to establish just what those "laws of physics" really are, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wikipedia articles on relativity
    ... The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of ... hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats wrong with these pictures???
    ... Perhaps you could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, ... it should come as no surprise that to the observer on the train, ... the front of the train has passed the front mark by the time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity
    ... > Suppose I'm an observer observing a physical event within a reference frame. ... > That is, unless the observers are identical, the laws of ... > physics won't appear to be identical. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Two EPR questions
    ... >> must arise whenever one wants to ask whether an observer will ... Is its Markov model an ontological theory? ... There's a psychological problem which has led theoretical physics ... >> Lorentz invariance and relativity are important when one needs to ...
    (sci.physics.research)