Re: Charged spinning disks

On May 22, 9:29 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 

I've no problem imbuing fundamental particles  with the
complexities of thought processes.  The relativity quacks get
by with far less.

How about this alternate interpretation: The particles may experience
less space between them when in relative motion.  

They don't unless you have an absolute motion
detector in your tool shed.  (principle of relativity)

Nonsense. If the metric is altered by nearby charges, then only the
relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. FWIW, why
do you think a point charge moves along a straight line in a field-
free region of space? Wouldn't this motion require someting to
reference it to? How do we know it's moving along a straight line?
Here in this case we are referencing that motion to more or less fixed
"neutral" masses in space. It is wrt to that system of masses that the
point charge moves along a straight line. Here again we thus have
relative motion rather than absolute motion. And how do you suppose
even in that case we get straight line motion? There is most
certainly some mechanism involving those fixed masses that fixes the
metric thorugh which the point charge moves. Since the only thing
around to provide such a mechanism is the surrounding fixed neutral
masses, then it is these that are providing that metric. In turn all
of these are, fundamentally, composed of charges. They are collections
of fermions, and not things themselves as far as these arguments are
concerned.

When the negative charges in the surrounding objects produce a curved
path to the left for a moving point charge through that space, the
positive charges in them produces a curved path to the right. The
superposition of these effects on the metric yields a straight path
for the point charge. Space is thus exactly the superposed fields of
all of the charges in the universe, where the fields of the particles
of charge are interpreted as being contributions to the metric. In
this sense absolute motion and relative motion are actually one and
the same, and the expression "absolute motion" in its common sense
loses all meaning, it was only a figment of imagination, one of the
meaningless statements that I referred to. I believe Mach had already
concluded the same, albeit again, I am reinterpreting the arguments in
favor of charge rather than mass.

If you'll review the above concept, then you'll see that it actually
works quite well. When one or more of the surrounding masses is non-
neutral, then the point charge no longer assumes straight-line motion,
but rather curved motion. If you view the point charges as being
extensions of 4D hyperbolic/elliptical space and superpose these over
one another, then electromagnetic phenomena result naturally. The
present forms of geometry may not yet be equipped to deal with
positive and negative spaces however. But then that isn't my fault.



You contradict yourself below:

<< I don't use Purcell, nor do I find his derivaton correct, even in
the
 special relativistic context. >>

The particles no
longer need thought processes. On the other hand, this would require
that wrt them there actually is less space between them, and thus
their motions must alter the space itself.  Just hold that thought for
a moment and you might get a better idea where I was going with the
previous arguments.

This was
just hypothetical, but there is no doubt that the answer lies in the
structure of spacetime, at least according to my version of the
theory.

Lightning propagated long before space-time was formulated,
or so we could infer from ancient texts so I have a little
problem with your time-line.

Space-time is just time and space. These existed long before
"Minkowski's" version of space-time was formulated. What I was
referring to as spece-time above wasn't Minkowski's space-time, but
nature's verison of space-time.  Ultimately, the only way to deprive
charged particles of thought processes is to have them move where
space guides them.  And in order to deprive space of though processes,
charged particles must tell space-time how to bend.  The two become
actually one and the same. What we call the field of the electron is
just its influence on the structure of space-time, or in other words
on the metric. The idea of forces propagating through space as
something other than space, i.e.,  as something moving through space,
requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond.
It has no intelligence however, so this might be a difficult task for
it to accomplish.  Moreover, by what means does the carrier wave or
photons interact with the electron?

By Coulomb force.

Which is a special case of Weber's force. No contradition. But here
again, Weber's force can easily be adapted to a metrical form, whereas
the classical E and B fields cannot.


How an antenna launches its input power into
radiation: the pattern of the Poynting vector at
and near an antenna  --JD Jacksonhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053

Energy is globally conserved. I've already gone over this argument,
and so did Feynman.


We are supposed to understand that
"it just does", without explanation at all, let alone a plausible
one.  If however the electron is just moving blindly along the
shortest path through space and time (hints of Feynman), then no
further explanation is required, and the electron is content to remain
perfectly oblivious to its motion, and even to its existence.

Einstein formulated this notion in terms of mass and its connection to
the metric, but once again I will disagree and say that it is charge
that determines the metric.  Mass is not an invariant, and thus it is
not real, and what is not real is imagined. No imaginary thing can
influence the motion of a particle.

What say we refer to natures construction rather than
a mathematician's construction?

What is the Interstellar Medium?http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Indeed, what is the interstellar medium? I believe I thourougly
addressed that above.


Propagation in a dielectric mediumhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html



If the Coulomb force itself (between macroscopic
electrostatic charges at rest) is due to the motions of the
fundmanetal particles of charge relative to each other, then we no
longer have available a relativistic adjustment to the Coulomb force
to produce magnetism (per Purcell), but rather only one fundamental
influence that in turn requires relative motion before this influence
is seen.  In such a case it seems likely that a fundmental particle of
charge affects the very metric in which the other particles move.

So don't use Purcell. You will have plenty of company.

I don't use Purcell, nor do I find his derivation correct, even in the
special relativistic context.

Electrons tell space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to
move.

~~Wheeler?

Whoa!

That is a gravitational expression.

Not in this argument it isn't! Well not directly. GR has to be a
limiting case of a more general theory cast in terms of charges rather
than mass.

Too many people looking for too many mass anomalies
and too many definitions of mass to make an assumption like that.

FWIW, when you eliminate force and replace it with curvature of space-
time, then mass is necessarily also eliminated, but the the fundmental
particles have to be retained, otherwise there is nothing to describe
the motion of. These can in turn be regarded not as "having" charge,
but as "being" a charge. Thus again we are led to the inevitable
conclusion, the metric is a funcion of charge or energy (since energy
is in turn a function of charges) rather than mass.


Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon., and electromagnetism is a
result of space-time curvatures.  

<< In physics, there is a *speculative notion* that if there
were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an
electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron
including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength.

As a description, the black hole electron theory is
incomplete. The first problem is that black holes tend to
merge when they meet. Therefore, a collection of black-
hole electrons would be expected to become one big black
hole. Also, an electron-positron collision would be expected
to produce a larger neutral black hole instead of two photons a
s is observed. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

This is irrelevant. The electron isn't a black hole.


So GR isn't necessarily wrong per
se, it simply isn't fundamental. FWIW Einstein said pretty much the
same himself. I could look up a quote or two, but you've probably read
them a time or two already.

I think Einstein held some hope for a ~black hole electron~
to unify EM an gravity.  Since neither Higgs bosons
nor ~black hole electrons~ are in our menagerie it
is somewhat difficult to test their equivalence or
interaction.

Again irrelevant.




You don't even know
if electrons know how to fall.  Coulomb force is ~10^42
greater than gravity so I won't ask if you have an experiment.

Indeed. Precisely.

I think Weber's Electrodynamics may make that assumption.

I think Weber's electrodynamics introduces the possibility that mass
is an electromagnetic effect, and hints at some future possibility of
unifying gravity and electromagnetism. What I posted above is what I
believe is the correct path to that unification. Weber did not have
such concepts as curvature of space-time at his disposal, since GR had
not yet been concieved of.




There is no longer such a concept as "static force".  And when
you look closely at that expression it seems self contradictory
anyway.  A static condition cannot induce dynamism.  

Purcell needs "dynamism" .   That is the penalty for teaching
Pythagorean theorem to students that are paying to learn
multiple integrals.

In my theory
there is no output without some input, which seems more tolerable than
Coulomb's magical energy from nowhere.  Of course the same arugment
can be applied to Newton's universal law of gravitation, and here
again we have the mutually exclusive terms coupled together "static"
"interaction" to account for the graviational interaction.

It might not be good idea to assume gravity is a fundamental
force 'till we have a good picture of an indivisible Higgs boson.

 In short,
F (force), only has meaning when there is m and a, where both of the
latter are nonzero values. A static force is quite an impossibility..

So ditch Purcell.  My fridge magnets haven't moved all
day and they are sticking just fine.

And they remain there only because the particles of which they are
composed are constantly in motion wrt the particles within the fridge
door.

Ahem.  You persist in ignoring a formulation that
works without that assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applica...http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

I won't argue that  ?something? is not moving in the fridge magnets
But I have some doubt it relates the speed of light as with the
Lorentz or Weber force  in macroatomic fields.

Light is just the interaction between charges. This is accounted for
in the 4D metric. Nothing propagates between the charges. The charges
have to be in relative motion however, in order for this effect to
occur. Electrons at rest wrt each other (in phase, or coherent) exert
no forces upon each other, or in other words, their contributions to
the metric move along with them, and thus coherent electrons do not
exert influence upon one another. Again, if you have two perfectly
static point charges of opposite sign bound together, then how do you
account for that? You cannot say that forces act on them, because
again, force is defined as ma. When a=0, then so does F=0. Where is
your force in this case? If one of the charges is accelerating toward
the other, then it cannot be perfectly static and bound in a state of
rest can it? And if it is at rest, then it cannot be undergoing
acceleration, and thus there is zero force acting on it. This isn't
complicated. No a, then no F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegunghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#Shortcomingsthe coherent electrons do not exert an influence on each other.


The momentum flux at the junction will equal the supposed
"Force" acting to hold the magnets in place.  There must be mass in
accelerated motion in order to have force. There is a difference
between "tension" due to opposing forces, and "no force", even though
the opposing forces add up to zero net force on the mass as a whole.
The fact that there is tension on an object means that the forces are
still there, and thus not nulled out everywhere within the object, but
only wrt the acceleration of the object as a whole.  The forces are
still very present at the surfaces where the forces act.  To put this
more simply, when opposing fields in space result in no acceleratoin
of an electron, then there is equivalently "no force" acting at that
point in space. But for a macroscopic mass the fields don't cancel
everywhere in the volume of that mass, even though they may cancel
when considering the net acceleration of the mass as a whole.  So
something has to be accelerating within the masses, or else there
would be no forces there to oppose one another, and thus no tension on
the object, and the magnet would fall off of the fridge door.  Thus
the charges of which the magnet and the fridge door are interacting
dynamically, via Weber's force, to hold the magnet to the fridge door.

I think your gravto-inertial notions and your electrodynamic
notions has a snake swallowing its own tail  Benj is the only one
that seriously considers that subatomic particles are composed
of chickens and eggs.   :-)

You simply haven't digested it properly.


In my version, the electrons are taken to already be moving at c wrt
each other, and the drift is just an increase in the already existing
relative tangential speeds of the electrons. This requires that the
linear speed of the electron actually be (sqrt2)c, and thus this
version is inherently not in conformity with special relativistic
constraints on speed.  The Coulomb force itself is thus also due to
the motions of electrons wrt each other, the drift of electrons
(current) is just an enhancement to the preexisting relative motion,
and thus also provides merely an an agumentation of the Coulomb
force.  The equation is however mathematically identical to Webers,
since the factor (sqrt2)c cancels out when Coulombs force is solved
for. FWIW, some accounts of Weber's force seem to suggest that he held
the same view, some don't.  I am not an expert on Weber, only on my
own independently derived version of the theory.

You assume some constraints that don't apply in subatomics.
But that is the beauty of the exercise... a better understanding
of the electron and positron.

Comparison between Weber's electrodynamics
and classical electrodynamics

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Prama..55..393A

Faraday's law method

Lorentz force law methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applica....

Sue...

=========

You're full of links. :)

I get more  laughs and insults posting links to the material
of others, so it has become a bad habit. I am saving my creative
juices for something more useful, like poetry.  :-)

Sue...

Poetry is what we're battling against.  The mainstream is fond of
meaningless expressions and redundancy.

Even when they claim to be mainstream it is
meaningless expressions and redundancy.

Sue...> :)

I believe I've eliminated all superfluous entities from the
discussion, which I think is the goal that physics in general should
be striving toward.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... (principle of relativity) ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ...  The relativity quacks get ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ... perfectly oblivious to its motion, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Explanation? of Inductance and Inertia
    ... All motion is relative, so what is it ... You will have no explanation without it. ... even if an electron appeared ... special relativity). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ...  The relativity quacks get ... relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. ... What we call the field of the electron is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why
    ... IOW's if you push or pull charges ... The interaction of the charge with the electromagnetic field ... > in the case of the Dirac electron. ... >>of Relativity insists you may attach a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)