Inicio > Mis eListas > debunker > Mensajes

 Índice de Mensajes 
 Mensajes 2431 al 2445 
AsuntoAutor
RE: Maxwell's Equa illu min
Semiescepticos Eva Bobr
RE: ] Einstein y l GREGORIO
RE FRAJALO GREGORIO
RE: Maxwell's Equa LÚSAR
Re: RE: 11 de sept Mamiblu
Re: Medicinas Alte José Áng
RE: Gravity Dimens Juan Ant
RE: noticias para Juan Ant
RE: Maxwell's Equa illu min
Comprando el perd GREGORIO
RE: RE: 11 de sept GREGORIO
noticias para no GREGORIO
Gravity Dimension illu min
Re: Comprando el Hernán T
 << 15 ant. | 15 sig. >>
 
Debunker
Página principal    Mensajes | Enviar Mensaje | Ficheros | Datos | Encuestas | Eventos | Mis Preferencias

Mostrando mensaje 2441     < Anterior | Siguiente >
Responder a este mensaje
Asunto:RE: [debunker] Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity Theory 2
Fecha:Domingo, 4 de Noviembre, 2001  08:14:46 (-0500)
Autor:illu minati <illu03 @.......com>

Maxwell’s Equations and Special Relativity Theory 2
Special Relativity Theory

Enter Einstein in 1905 with his famous paper on SRT(4).Contrary
to popular belief, he was not attempting to address the 1887
Michelson-Morley (M-M) null-result, and was reportedly unaware
of it at the time(5).In effect, he borrowed, and then redefined,
the Lorentz transformation in order to address the invariance
problem with the Maxwell Equations. He also stated two postulates.
 Einstein’s First Postulate was a restatement of the principle
of relativity (not to be confused with the Theory of Relativity).
The principle of relativity is the antiptolemaic epitome of
enlightenment and common sense, and was known during the time
of Galileo, if not earlier. It was first stated by Newton in
his Principia(6)over three hundred years ago. In essence, it
says that the laws of physics, when properly formulated, remain
equally valid in all (inertial) frames moving with uniform
velocity with respect to each other. All physicists accept
this principle without reservation.

Einstein’s Second Postulate states that the velocity of light
is independent of the state of motion of its emitting source.
Actually, this is not at all an unusual proposal, and it
would be expected of a medium-based (aether) theory. The
analogy to sound waves is irresistible. When a train whistle
blows, the speed of sound is independent of the speed of the
train, but not of the velocity of the wind carrying the sound
to the observer. Here, the air molecules are the medium, and
they play the equivalent role of the aether for
electromagnetism. But SRT is not an aether-based theory, at
least not directly. (General relativity uses the concept of
"curved spacetime." Matter supposedly causes the curving of
"space," and "curved space" causes the bending of light rays.
From a metaphysical standpoint, curved space-time is just as
audacious and arbitrary as the nebulous aether of the nineteenth
century.) And although not explicitly stated by Einstein, some
thought will convince the reader that the Second Postulate, when
combined with the principle of relativity, results in a velocity
of light that is also independent of the receiver (the observer),
because the emitting source can take on any velocity including
that of the receiver. So here we have a prediction resulting in
a sharp departure from our everyday experience.
 It has been stated that Einstein independently derived
the Lorentz transformation using his two postulates, but this
is not true. Taken alone, they are insufficient to derive the
Lorentz transformation uniquely. Further assumptions must be
made to do so; otherwise, several alternative transformations
can be derived from them.(7) Nevertheless, in 1905 this was a
tentative start toward a salvage operation of the Maxwell
Equations for observations at high speeds, and physicists were
willing to overlook the smell of covariance, and the use of an
ad hoc transformation, if it would rescue the Holy Grail. As
Phipps has pointed out,(8) this was a bizarre turn of events, for
there were competing theories at the time, theories capable of
remedying the situation without the need to tamper with the
time-honored concepts of space and time. This is all the more
poignant, considering the fact that the Lorentz transformation
intermixes and scrambles space and time, something that is
unfounded and erroneous.

Problems and Paradoxes of SRT
Before we present alternative theories that could be used to
replace SRT, it is important to discuss the serious problems
and paradoxes associated with the use of SRT. The full impact
of this most unusual theory is rarely discussed, and the
first warning signs of trouble appeared shortly after the
1905 paper was published. For simplicity, a single Lorentz
transformation is normally applied along one coordinate axis.
But what about the more general case of two linear, but
nonaligned (non-collinear) translations? You might assume
that this merely adds complexity to the calculation, but
not so- the theory breaks down. The results depend upon the
order in which the two translations are applied. For example,
apply two transformations in succession, with the velocities
of the two systems pointed in different directions, say,
along the x axis and then along the y-axis. Next, repeat the
calculation by reversing the order, e.g., the y-axis and
then the x-axis. The result is different. Hence the Lorentz
transformation fails to obey the commutative law of mathematics,
(a+b = b+a) and a definitive answer eludes us. This is a paradox,
an absurdity.

Thomas Rotation
Theoreticians were brought in to resuscitate SRT and they
administered the so-called "Thomas Rotation" ("Thomas Precession,"
when applied to the electron). This is a rotation of coordinate
axes introduced to compensate for the error between the two results
mentioned above. It might seem a bit odd that an inertial system,
that is, a moving system with fixed velocity and no acceleration
nor rotation, should begin to rotate! Furthermore, where did this
rotational energy come from? Is this a real effect, or is it some
sort of mathematical artifact, some indication that the Lorentz
transformation (and hence SRI) is in error?
Some years later, a theoretical prediction(9) for Thomas Rotation
was published in the British journal Nature, and an experiment
was conducted by Phipps to determine whether it really existed.
The experiment produced a null result, and despite the photographic
evidence, it was refused publication in Nature. Consequently, the
results were published elsewhere.(10,11) There is also a theoretical
basis for refutation of the Thomas Rotation.(12)

The Ehrenfest Paradox
If phantom rotation wasn’t bad enough, the next disease to afflict
SRT was the rigid body problem, otherwise known as the "Ehrenfest
Paradox." Einstein had originally intended SRI to apply to rigid
bodies only. Ehrenfest asked the question, "What happens when we
have an idealized rigid disk, and we set it into rotation?"(13)
The outer edge of the disk can be divided into infinitesimal
segments such that they appear to be moving with a linear velocity
with respect ro an observer in the laboratory. How would the
Lorentz contraction affect such an object, as viewed by the
observer? The radius must contract somehow.
In 1910, the first generally accepted answer (now called the
Herglotz-Noether theorem) said that, since the disk was rigid, it
could not rotate! Of course, there were those who decried this sort
of non-solution solution, so the next answer to bubble to the surface
said the disk could rotate if it was somewhat elastic, and not made of
rigid material. So once again, we have a radical departure from
everyday experience. Newtonian mechanics has absolutely no problem
with rigid spinning bodies, while Einstein’s approach expressly
forbids them on purely mathematical grounds.

The Lorentz Contraction
There is also the pole-vaulter paradox, the lever parado and a
host of other variants. What these all have in common is the Lorentz
contraction. But do atomic particles shrink in the direction of their
motion, as viewed by an external observer? Do macro-objects really
shrink? The author of the Lorentz transformation considered the
contraction effect to apply only to a deformable electron based on
an aether-stresi theory.(14) He never intended for his mathematical-
equivalence contraction formula to be extrapolated to all matter as
a reality. This might explain why H.A. Lorentz was adamantiy opposed
to SRT until his death in 1928. He intended it to explain the electron’s
non-uniform concentration (bunching) of electric field lines
perpendicular to its direction of acceleration. In electrical
engineering, this is similar to the "skin-effect" at macroscopic
levels.(15), pp.149-151 But length contraction plays no role.
During the first half of the twentieth century, physicists were eager
to put the Lorentz contraction to the test, and see if the phenomenon
really existed. Several experiments were performed,16-18 but no variation
in length was observed. Recently, a modern space-based test has been
proposed by Renshaw.(19) To date, no direct experimental verification of
relativistic length contraction has ever been measured.

The Twin-Paradox
The twin-paradox (also known as the clock-paradox) is without a
doubt the most famous paradox associated with SRT. Once upon a
time, there were two twin brothers. One twin ventured into outer
space at relativistic speeds, while the other twin stayed home.
As extrapolated by SRT, the Lorentz transformation causes time
itself to slow down, not just for moving subatomic particles,
but for atoms and molecules, and for bigger objects, say, people!
To continue with the story, the space traveling twin eventually
reverses course to return to Earth. Upon his arrival, he discovers
that his Earth-bound brother has aged many years, while he has aged
only a few. This is considered to be a paradox because each twin
(each observer) can claim that it is the other who moves at high
speed as viewed in his own reference frame.
So in SRT, how can one age more than the other? The
symmetry-breaking event is  alleged to be the fact that the
space traveling twin must reverse course in order to return.
This causes him undergo accelerations and decelerations that
the other does not experience. No clear explanation is given
as to why this would break symmetry and slow the aging process,
especially over a many year period, where the actual time
involved in acceleration could be quite small.
In reality, there is little doubt that both twins would age at the
same rate. So there really is no paradox because there is no
time-dilation. This myth is perhaps the greatest extrapolation of
elementary observation in the history of science. Let’s take a careful
look at the evidence supporting the timedilation aspects of SRT.

(There is no time-dilation. This myth is perhaps
the greatest extrapolation of elementary observation
to the history of science.)

Time-Dilation
The alleged proof for time-dilation is claimed to be among the most
confirmed experiments in physics. Yet a careful dissection of these
experiments reveals an equally plausible alternative explanation, one
that does not require time to be a dependent variable.(20-21) There are
three types of experiments that address this issue, the rate of
radioactive decay of high-speed mesons in linear motion(22)and in
circular orbit,(23) the transport of atomic clocks around the globe,
24-25 and (indirectly via) the relativistic Doppler formula.(20) As
Beckmann has pointed out, in all cases the experimenters have failed
to ask, let alone answer, whether time itself is dilated, or whether
internal processes are simply slowed by moving through a gravitational
field.(15) PP77-81 To date, no direct experimental verification of
relativistic timedilation has ever been measured.
Do we know what the "innards" of a high-speed meson consist of?
Nope. Do we know what causes natural radioactive decay? Not really.
It can be characterized mathematically by a Poisson distribution,
but the actual internal "trigger" for a particular decay is unknown.
Could the rate of decay be affected by angular accelerations, or by
traversing a gravitational potential? Think about the last time you
rode an amusement park ride. Weren’t you affected?
In 1761, the British Royal Navy awarded John Harrison a cash prize
of 9,000 £ (over $2,000,000 in today’s currency) for inventing a
navigation-quality timepiece with enough accuracy to withstand tile
pitching and rolling seas ot the Atlantic. The magnitude of the residual
error has diminished over the centuries, but the basic problem remains.
We cannot construct an ideal clock using actual materials, even if we
use cesium atoms by definition. To emphasize this point, let’s take a
look at a grandfather clock. If we transport such a clock eastward
around the globe, it will slow down. But if we transport it westward,
it will speed up. The grandfather clock relies upon the force of gravity
to control the timekeeping rhythm of its pendulum, in inverse proportion
to the square root of "g." When transported westward against the rotation
of the earth, the centrifugal force of the earth’s rotation is diminished
and the effect of its gravity field is strengthened, if ever so slightly.
Hence the clock speeds up in an increased gravitational field. And of
course, if flown eastward with the earth’s rotation, its centrifugal force
is strengthened and the clock slows down a little. Time-dilation? Of course
not. We explain the outcome of the experiment by analyzing the "innards" of
the clock. But the influence of gravity applies to more than just pendulum
clocks. For example in the famous Hafele-Keating experiment,(25) the atomic
clock transported eastward lost 59 ns, but the atomic clock transported
westward gained 273 ns, compared to the stationary laboratory standard.
All physical devices used for time keeping are subject to error when
accelerated, decelerated, or constrained to move linearly through a
variation in gravitational potential.
So if we can’t rely upon experiment, let’s do the next best thing and
look to theory for an answer. What does electrodynamics have to say?
Oleg Jefimenko (of Generalizations of Coulomb and Biot-Savart laws(26)
fame) has answered this question most eloquently. Using conventional
electrodynamic theory,(27) he has analyzed the interactions of charged
particles. The simple arrangement shown in Figure 1 can be used as an
oscillatory particle-clock. In many cases, these "particle-clocks"
behave precisely as predicted by SRT, apparently a brilliant and
stunning confirmation of the theory. But when this same particle
clock is oriented 90 degrees to its direction of motion, it behaves
differently. This is not predicted by SRT (apparently a shocking and
stunning defeat?). In the case of Jefimenko’s particle clocks, they
slow down for purely conventional reasons, having nothing to do with
time-dilation. Some clocks slow in accordance with the Lorentz
transformation and some do not. But SRT adopts the Lorentz transformation
exactly, without any wiggle room. In the final analysis, the concept
and definition of time is metaphysical. It ought not to be subjected
to the whims of anyone’s pet theory.

Alternative Theories
Einstein’s SRT tampers with space and time in order to force the
speed of light to be constant with respect to all observers. And
it pays the price. The theory is reminiscent of a balloon animal.
If squeezed at one end, it expands at the other, yielding an overall
concervation of paradox. At least five alternatives to SRT have been
proposed:

1.The speed of light is constant with respect to an unentrained
(or partially entrained) aether. (This is the equivalent of an more
particularly, it must not make the absolute reference frame and
violates the principle of relativity.)

2. The speed of light is constant with respect to
the emitting source. This is the Ritzian "ballistic" theory
where the speed of light is (v+c), like projectiles fired from
a moving tank (and the antithesis of the Second Postulate).
3. The speed of light is constant with respect to a fully
entrained ether.
4. The speed of light is constant with respect to the dominant
local or gravitational field, as proposed more recently by
Beckmann.(15)
5. The speed of light is constant with respect to the absorber
(the detector), as proposed more recently by Phipps.(8)

Long ago, the great optical experimentalist, Albert A. Michelson,
disproved the first two of these five theories. Note that the M-M
experiment was compatible with all of these theories with the
exception of number 1. In a separate experiment, Michelson showed
conclusively that number 2 was untenable?(28) So contrary to popular
myth, Michelson believed that he had actually confirmed the existence
of the aether, via theory number 3.
Beckmann has noted that number 3 and number 4 are nearly equivalent
theories, if you replace the outdated term "aether" with his more
radical idea of "gravity." Beckmann’s theory (number 4) squares with
all of the experimental evidence, because in every case, the observer
has always been tied to the Earth-bound frame of reference. (The
double-star evidence does not refute his theory.) The light emitted
(from binary stars revolving about a common center of mass) would
indeed travel with two different velocities initially, and this would
cause spectral anomalies that are not observed. But the light rays
would merge to a common velocity as the gravitational fields from
the two stars merged into one dominant field.(15), P-37 And the dominant
field would change yet again upon encountering an observer in the
Earth’s gravitational field. Beckmann’s theory and SRT predict the
same answers to first-order in (v/c), and a decisive experiment
would have to be performed at second-order, (v/c)^2
In his outstanding book,(8) Phipps argues forcefully and confidently
for his absorber theory (number 5) by starting with some of the original
ideas of Heinrich Hertz. Hertz proposed a minor modification to the
Maxwell Equations in order to make them invariant to the Galilean
transformation. The modification involved a simple and straight forward
change from partial derivatives (@/@t) to time derivatives (d/dt) in
Faraday’s and Ampere’s Laws. This had the excellent effect of adding
a velocity parameter to the Maxwell Equations (a very pragmatic
modification for dealing with moving inertial frames, wouldn’t you say?).
But unfortunately, Hertz assigned the wrong definition to his new velocity
term, one having to do with the fashionable aether wind of the nineteenth
century. As a result, his "Hertzian Theory" was shot down by experiment.
To make matters worse, his untimely death in 1894 from blood poisoning,
at the age of thirty-six, made it impossible for him to catch his mistake
and reassign proper meaning to the new parameter.
Phipps has continued this work by assigning the velocity of the detector
to this Hertzian parameter. Phipps goes on to propose an experiment which
can decide between SRT and his theory. Furthermore, his experiment can
determine the victor at first-order in (v/c). This sheds some light on
why experiment has not yet determined a winner among the various theories
mentioned. With the available technology, experiments at first-order are
extremely difficult to do, and experiments at second-order are impossible.
In view of the problems with SRT and the availability of alternatives, is
it any wonder that there were (and are) several noted authorities who would
have nothing to do with SRT? Some of the famous ones included Dingle, Essen,
Ives, Mach, Russell, and Rutherford. (My apologies to anyone I may have
missed (or included) in the Who’s Who Directory of Heretical Physics.)
Michelson was even rumored to have said, "I have created a monster." Wheeler
and Feynman also toyed with the idea of an acausal absorber theory to replace
SRT. And late in life, Einstein was said to have had second thoughts.
It is interesting to note that the speed of light is approximately the
same as the escape velocity from an idealized electron in a Bohr orbit.(29)
Perhaps it will turn out that theories number 2, 4, and 5 are all correct
within their respective gravitational spheres of influence.

(Physics, if it is to understand the real world, must build
on the two primitive and undefinable pillars [space and time].
It must not tamper with them in order to accommodate higher
concepts.  It must not redefine the unthinkable more particulary,
it most make the primitive pillars observer-dependent.



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com