General > General Technical Chat
Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
TimFox:
This reminded me of a very bad time in the history of physics, discussed in this long article https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
Note 1 at the end of the article discusses the early history of plagiarism against Einstein.
What does this sentence mean: "(after which Einstein name her paper)" ?
Re: "I don’t know what behaviour that is."
Modern electron accelerators ("linear accelerators") are discussed here: https://web.stanford.edu/~rlbyer/PDF_AllPubs/2005/407.pdf
This article concentrates on very high energy accelerators, but the relativistic effects are already important at a few MeV.
HuronKing:
Cathode-ray-tube televisions are particle accelerators. They wouldn't work properly without special relativity.
Jefimenko's papers are fun (because it seems he's mostly bitching about pedagogy) but he points the way to Jackson who makes it clear what Purcell and others are saying:
https://archive.org/details/ClassicalElectrodynamics2nd/page/n605/mode/2up
I kind of laughed when Jackson wrote,
"But what if there had been a magnetic field B' in K'?"
So to be clear, Jackson, cited by Jefimenko, isn't taking issue with the relativistic transformation of the E-field from moving charges causing the appearance of B-field effects in the other reference frame, he just wants you to know that it can't be a complete description of the B-field in other reference frame unless you say so...
Of course the relativistic transformation of the E-field is not a complete description of the B-field in the other reference frame if that other reference frame already had a B-field from some other source... you'd have to account for that too. Duh? And Jackson delves into this further in homework problem 12.3 (where he calls this a pseudomagnetic force).
And even, to his credit, the Science Asylum video that says the magnetic force does not exist specifically addresses the problem Jefimenko was mad about - that one could argue the Electric Force does not exist either. And that's exactly it - they're not independent entities. They're both representations of the total electromagnetic field.
And this is what makes aetherists cowardly hacks as Steinmetz warned us about. An aetherist can spend weeks on an EE forum getting personalized counseling from numerous experts after having been banned from multiple physics forums, yet still have no idea what anyone is talking about regarding EM fields
Exemplified by saying stupid shit like
--- Quote ---I don’t know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
--- End quote ---
My God, that's STR 101...
aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on April 04, 2022, 09:59:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 09:25:35 pm ---[...]Old (electron) electricity fails to explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light c/1 along a wire. Bearing in mind that the speed of em radiation in Cu is 10 m/s DC, & less if AC.
And, old (electron) electricity fails to explain how drifting electrons inside a wire know that the wire has an insulation coating, ie the drifting electrons decide to propagate the electricity at 2c/3 instead of c/1.
--- End quote ---
You're going to need to produce formal proof that classical theory doesn't explain the speed of electricity along a wire... because it does... it travels at a rate that is dependent on the EM properties of the wire and surroundings... is a non-issue for classical theory.
The speed of EM fields inside a wire isn't important because the fields can travel externally to the wire and the electrons inside respond.
Old electricity explains the propagation speed of the "velocity wavefront" or "current density wavefront" that exists in response to the external fields. The presence of insulation slows the external fields to an extent that depends on their thickness and characteristics, some fields travel external to the insulation. Your theory does not explain how an air gap between conductor and insulation can also affect the speed of electrons.
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 09:25:35 pm ---[...]So that is why i discovered my new (electon) electricity, ie electricity is in the photons hugging the wire.
This must rate as the best scientific discovery of 2021. And more.
--- End quote ---
It's neither scientific nor a discovery.
--- End quote ---
Einstein was correct that light slows when near mass. This is why my elektons hug a wire, the nearside being slowed moreso than the farside (plus charge attraction). But this raises a problem for my elektons, if they are slowed then elekticity can't ever propagate at the speed of light, koz elektons must propagate a little slower than the speed of light. If its only say 1% slower then praps its ok. After all most of the work done with electricity is for insulated wires, or at least wires that have corroded on the outside.
But the question re the effect of an air gap tween wire & insulation is interesting. The speed of the elektons would be the speed of light in air. Minus some km/s due to the slowing of the nearness of mass of the Cu. Minus some km/s due to the nearness of the mass of the insulation outside the gap. I think that the speed of elekticity along a wire with an air gap tween the wire & insulation would be very little different to the speed of elekticity with zero insulation.
But the reference to the effect of the gap on the speed of electrons must be a typing error. U must have meant elektons. It is old (electron) electricity that can't explain (how insulation affects the old (electron) electricity speed)(or how a small gap might affect).
But in any case we can't say can't based merely on a gedanken, we would need real numbers/speeds.
xrunner:
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 11:54:15 pm ---Einstein was correct that light slows when near mass.
--- End quote ---
I don't think so. Mass causes light to follow a curved path, but it does not slow down.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on April 04, 2022, 10:04:07 pm ---This reminded me of a very bad time in the history of physics, discussed in this long article https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
Note 1 at the end of the article discusses the early history of plagiarism against Einstein.
What does this sentence mean: "(after which Einstein name her paper)" ?
Re: "I don’t know what behaviour that is."
Modern electron accelerators ("linear accelerators") are discussed here: https://web.stanford.edu/~rlbyer/PDF_AllPubs/2005/407.pdf
This article concentrates on very high energy accelerators, but the relativistic effects are already important at a few MeV.
--- End quote ---
Mrs Einstein worked for Lenard, & stole his ideas.
So, u are saying that STR explains E=mcc or m=e/cc. The derivation of E=mcc was flawed, it was a circular proof/derivation (as shown by Ives & Co).
Anyhow, aether theory says that c is a speed limit (me myself i reckon that the limit is about 0.7c).
However, aether theory duznt say that the mass of an electron increases with speed. But it duznt rule it out either.
If indeed mass duz increase with speed then it will need a proper explanation, not some silly STR or spacetime explanation.
I suspect that the application of gamma to mass to give a very large mass as the speed approaches the speed of light is a circular theory. One outcome of this is that we have lots of new particles that don’t really exist.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version