Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
From: J. J. Lodder (nospam_at_de-ster.demon.nl)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Igor: "Re: spin 2 particles and electromagnetism"
- Previous message: J. J. Lodder: "Re: Setting constants like hbar to unity"
- In reply to: Andr? Michaud: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Next in thread: Satya Das: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:24:56 +0000 (UTC)
Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
[newsgroups header trimmed]
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj6o9i.xf6dz1td
1d32N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...
> > Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
> > [Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> > > analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> > > him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> > > se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> > > electrodynamic origin.
> >
> > And you can judge what Kaufmann's work was worth from the fact
> > that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula for the
> > electromagnetic mass (the same which we now call the
> > relativistic masss formula) was definitely in disagreement
> > with his experimental results.
>
> Of course not.
>
> Kaufmann was pure experimentalist, so like most if not all
> experimentalists, he of course trusted more his experimental
> results than any theory that he perceived as being however
> slightly at odds with them, even if he had no alternate
> explanation to offer.
Pure experimentalists (or theoreticians) didn't exist at the time.
And Kaufmann's measurements depended on a lot of theory
for their interpretation.
"Kaufmann was not only an excellent experimenter,
but also an able theorist." (Helge Kragh)
> His personal opinion is not really relevant. But his data is and
> the direct conclusions that can be drawn from it are.
Sure, he falsified the theory of relativity.
Only fools like Einstein refused to accept after Kaufmann's verdict
that the theory of relativity was dead.
Except that real physics doesn't work that way.
> In the community at large, the real dispute was more a matter
> of interpretation as to which theory was validated by Kaufmann's
> data.
Kaufmann left no room for that.
He stated clearly that the Lorentz-Einstein formula
(and hence the theory of relativity)
was not compatible with his data.
> To my knowledge there was a furious debate that opposed Einstein
> (and followers) to Abraham (and followers), as to which between
> the Lorentz-Einstein theory and Abraham's theory was validated by
> Kaufmann's data on electron deflection, and from what I know of
> him, Abraham was widely disliked to start with in the community
> for his open disrespect and impatience for theories or opinions
> he didn't share, which did not help any his ideas being considered
> objectively in the community.
And Einstein was competent enough about experiments and their
interpretation (pure theoreticians didn't exist at the time)
to see that Kaufmann's experiments were too uncertain
to justify K's sweeping conclusion.
> Heated arguments assigned various values to a factor "k" that
> Kaufmann used in his equations, some of which favored Abraham's
> model, others favoring Lorentz-Einstein's.
>
> > Somebody else's (now forgotten by all but historians of science)
> > different formula agreed with Kaufmann's results.
>
> Not forgotten by all. It was Abraham's.
And Bucherer-Langevin's.
They had a constant-volume electron, Lorentz-contracted in the direction
of motion, and expanded to compensate in the perpendicular direction.
Ironically, it was the same Bucherer, by refining Kaufmann's work,
who (somewhat later) falsified his own theory. (and Abraham's),
while confirming Lorentz-Einstein.
> > Lorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,
> > Einstein concluded that Kaufmann's experiments must be in error.
>
> But referring to your first remark, how surprising is it that Einstein
> would have held an opinion contrary to that of Kaufmann. It is a
> historical fact that they had contrary opinions on the matter.
If you insist on irrelevant ad-hominem: (please don't reply)
how surprising do you consider it that Kaufmann
would support his personal friend and direct collegue Abraham?
(both Goettingen)
> But despite the fact that the bulk of physicists of the period chose
> to give more credit to the values of k that favored the Lorentz-Einstein
> model, and notwithstanding the debate regarding the value that should
> be assigned to factor "k", nothing can change the fact that Kaufmann's
> experimental data regarding the transverse and longitudinal masses of
> moving electrons was considered sufficiently widely not to be completely
> explained by Special Relativity for this to be brought as an argument
> that was instrumental in preventing Einstein from obtaining the Nobel
> for the SR Theory.
In 1906, at the Stutgartt meeting, the majority still favoured
Abraham/Kaufmann over Lorentz/Einstein.
(Planck saved the day by stalling,
claiming that more experiments were needed.)
Your suggestion that the issue was settled by a majority vote
on basis of (im)popularity instead of experimental data is simply false.
> This is precisely what got my attention on the case and got me to start
> digging into the transverse-longitudinal mass angle to make my own
> opinion.
>
> > (Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself
> > to prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)
> > Einstein was right in this.
>
> Matter of opinion.
>
> Isn't completely explaining experimental results precisely what
> theories are supposed to be about?
Not in my book. Showing which experiments must be wrong
as also what theories are about.
> What theory can be complete if it does not explain all experimental
> results?
No theory will ever explain incorrect experimental results.
> All through history the temptation was rampant of trying to fit data
> to theories, simply because we like the theories. But we are getting
> into philosophies here.
Sure, the wrong philosophies even.
But indeed, let's stop about philosophy.
> > For a description and analysis of the situation
> > the book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord
> > can be highly recommended.
> >
> > > I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> > > referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> > > lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> > > the past.
> >
> > Of course you can't find anything:
> > After Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.
>
> Matter of opinion again. The direct dispute between Kaufmann and
> Einstein lasted well into the 1910's; interestingly right up to
> the point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection
> angle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that
> which he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation
> until 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.
The general theory has nothing to do with this issue.
> I am positive that Kaufmann was directly instrumental in causing
> Einstein to finally understand the need for a deflection angle larger
> than classical because if mass really is of electromagnetic origin,
> as his data seems to indicate, his findings on transverse-longitudinal
> inertia directly demonstrate that transverse gravitational
> interaction can only cause a deflection angle larger than classical
> for any electromagnetic energy, which light had been proven to be
> for a few decades already, without any need to invoque the spacetime
> curvature concept.
Understanding isn't involved: once given the right theory
there is nothing but computation.
> I think he gave up because Einstein's Theories had gained so much
> momentum in the community on mere authority on top of Abraham's
> personal unpopularity that he felt powerless to counter them
> anymore.
Or more simply: he may have understood he was wrong.
> > The theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence of the
> > electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,
> > unrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.
> > This killed the whole subject, once understanding of what Einstein
> > had achieved spread in the physics community.
>
> Yes. But when Abraham's theory was dumped, not only his theory
> was abandoned. A very promising baby was also thrown out with
> the bath's water: Kaufmann's real experimental data.
The data were real, but in error, like Miller's a generation later.
If you insist on retaining all erroneuos experimental results
no progress in physics is possible.
> Interestingly (in my humble opinion of course) my analysis led me
> to conclude that it is precisely this nick in SR that caused Einstein
> not to be granted the Nobel, that widened into a crack that zigzagged
> unnoticed across time on the thick skin of SR and now GR right up to
> the Pioneer 10/11 so-called "anomaly", despite widespread opinions that
> this "anomaly" is minor and will eventually be ironed out without
> involving the foundations.
Einstein was given the Nobel for the wrong subject because the Nobel
comittee (to its disgrace) was too afraid of nationalistic noises from
Germany. (from what eventually became the 'Aryan Physics movement)
They chose a 'safe' subject to award the prize to Einstein instead.
In consequence there has never been a Nobel prize
for the greatest developments in physics (neither the special, nor the
general theory) since the prize was established.
> The Kaufmann data is real experimental data, and to this day, it
> still has not been integrated.
Of course it has been integrated: he was in error.
> No theory can be complete until it is, and at some point, it is bound
> to be.
>
> The future will tell.
There is no future, for Kaufmann, or more generally,
for particle structure from mass/velocity data,
Jan
-- "No experimental result should be believed untill it has been confirmed by a reliable theory." (Eddington)
- Next message: Igor: "Re: spin 2 particles and electromagnetism"
- Previous message: J. J. Lodder: "Re: Setting constants like hbar to unity"
- In reply to: Andr? Michaud: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Next in thread: Satya Das: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
