General > General Technical Chat
The Science Asylum -- How Special Relativity Fixed Electromagnetism.
<< < (4/6) > >>
TimFox:

--- Quote from: switchabl on May 31, 2023, 09:16:52 pm ---Well, you're in luck. Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect was published in the same year as the special relativity one (1905). It was an exciting time to be a physicist. :popcorn:

--- End quote ---

Yet humanity managed to screw it all up with a war that lasted until at least 1945 (with only pauses).
During 2014, I binged on a new crop of history monographs at the centennial of the official start of WW I.
The scariest thing was an account of popular sentiment at the time of the Archduke's assassination in 1914:
There had been several crises before that, such as the two Balkan wars and the now-forgotten conflict between France and Germany in Morocco (two crises in 1905/6 and 1911).
They had all blown over, so surely this one would as well.
IanB:

--- Quote from: TimFox on May 31, 2023, 10:32:58 pm ---They had all blown over, so surely this one would as well.

--- End quote ---

To quote Blackadder: "The whole thing started because it was just too much effort not to have a war."
aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on May 31, 2023, 03:31:11 pm ---The canonical version about aether wind below.  Remember, we're talking about an axiom that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the reference frame:

Maurizio Consoli of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Catania, Sicily, argues in Physics Letters A (vol 333, p 355) that any Michelson-Morley type of experiment carried out in a vacuum will show no difference in the speed of light even if there is an aether. According to him, electroweak theory and quantum field theory suggest that light could appear to move at different speeds in different directions in a medium such as a dense gas in contradiction with special relativity; the speed of light would be sensitive to motion relative to an aether and the refractive index of the medium. Consoli and Evelina Costanzo propose an experiment with laser light passing through cavities filled with a relatively dense gas. With the Earth passing through an aether wind, light would travel faster in one direction than in the perpendicular direction..... Consoli and Constanzo have not run the proposed experiment. The mathematical treatment of their paper does not use the relativistic dragging coefficient to account for the speed of light in a moving medium, and most physicists regard this as an elementary error that leads to their incorrect conclusions. Their paper is very similar to another similarly flawed paper by Reg Cahill ("R.T. Cahill A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, in Progress in Physics, vol 4 , 2006" ), another proponent of an experiment that would detect the elusive "preferential frame". Cahill claims to have detected absolute motion with respect to a preferential frame but his paper suffers from the same mathematical shortcomings as the Consoli-Constanzo paper as well as from lack of experimental error bars in his experimental data processing. Consequently, their research had no impact on the physics community.
--- End quote ---
Prof Reg Cahill duz include aether drag & refractive index in his historic explanation of the correct calibration of oldendays gas-mode MMXs in about 2001.
His re-calibration lifted the 1887 "null" aetherwind speed of about 7 km/s to over 200 km/s. Silly Michelson was looking for 30 km/s.

And then i came along & in about 2017 explained that Cahill was wrong. He (& Fizeau & Co) talked of aether drag, when the correct term & mechanism is simple photon drag (a minor error which duznt change the numbers).

Michelson & Morley & Miller got a systematic signal, periodic in a half turn, which was consistent with aetherwind, ie consistent with Earth's spin & orbit through a (supposedly) static (supposed) luminiferous aether.
U say that the MMXs (& Cahill's own experiments) had too much error. No.
U say that Cahill had the same math shortcomings as Consoli & Constanzo. No.

U said that C&C said that vacuum mode MMXs will show no difference in the speed of light. Yes. C&C are correct. A vacuum mode MMX is merely an experiment that is a good test of relativistic length contraction, ie a null result supports the standard equation for (the Lorentz) gamma. But in reality it karnt falsify any other gammas (if they exist) that are based on say width dilation (eg the Voigt relativity gamma), or are based on a mix of length contraction & width dilation etc.
But i must have a look at the C&C paper. What year was it? Cahill was about 2001, did C&C have priority/precedence over Cahill?

In any case, VV Demjanov made a twin-media interferometer in 1968-72, which used a laser & a dense gas (carbon bisulphide), & his X was 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays klumzy klunky air-mode MMXs. Demjanov found an aetherwind of 140 km/s to 480 km/s on 22 June at Obninsk. His error bars were less than 1 km/s. He published in English in about 2005.

An aetherwind means that we have an aether.
An aether gives us a preferred frame.
A preferred frame kills STR (& thusly kills GTR too).
And kills Purcell's silly relativistic pseudo magnetic field.
Game over, thank u ball boys & ball girls.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: switchabl on May 31, 2023, 03:57:00 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on May 30, 2023, 11:59:59 pm ---Question-1.   In Purcell's parallel velocity case. Why did Purcell ignore axial compression for the field from his protons?
This would introduce an xx force, ie in addition to Purcell's (phony) yy force.

Question-2.   In a parallel velocity case. When there is no current on the wire, & the squirrel is static, the force is zero.
After the current is switched on, & the squirrel is static, the force is zero.
But axial compression requires that there is a force. Partly axial & partly perpendicular.
--- End quote ---
The compression of the electric field plays no rule in the parallel case. It is still there at the level of the individual (moving) electrons and ions but if you sum up their contributions, the effect just averages out instead of creating an imbalance. An easy way to see this is to notice that the charge and current distributions are stationary, so this is a magnetostatics problem. And in this case, the Maxwell equations decouple, the magnetic field depends only on the currents and the electric field depends only on the charge distribution. In particular the movement of the ions can have no impact on the electric field and there is no additional force.
--- End quote ---

No No No No & No.

I don’t agree with u that electron drift duznt introduce charge compression. If the test charge is static then the approaching negative charges compress, & the receding negative charges dilate. If the test charge is drifting then the approaching positive charges compress & the receding positive charges dilate. But here i don’t believe any of that, i am merely parroting what i think is the standard (false)(silly)(Einsteinian Mafia gatekeeper's) protocols foisted on skoolkids. But i will leave it there, koz i want to jump to Purcell's big lie.

It seems to me that u don’t agree with Purcell.
Purcell's big lie says that after the current is switched on (& while Nick's squirrel is static), there is or should be an electric force (due to length contraction of the train of drifting electrons) – so, to eliminate the unwanted force, Purcell invokes that the negative charges (the drifting electrons) re-arrange themselves (ie spread out), to exactly negate the length contraction effect (before his finger leaves the switch).

In addition, Purcell uses that there silly lie to invoke an initial charge dilation, which allows him to double the final relativistic force. So, his big lie kills 2 big problems with one fell swoop.

Then Purcell finally uses gamma for a third time, to vary the raw invariant electric force (i forget whether the raw force was too big or too small).

If needed (apparently it was not needed) Purcell could have i suppose invoked gamma a fourth time to say introduce some kind of (silly) time dilation effect (Einsteinists are stupid but cunning). But now i am being silly, ignore that.
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: switchabl on May 30, 2023, 04:54:15 pm ---The title of the video is maybe somewhat misleading

--- End quote ---

How about "When EM mortally wounded the ether and SR put the last nail in it's coffin"?
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod