 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / September 2004Attack my theory if you can
This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) who wish to attack my theory: "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf or it's applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf Do your best to present your case against any of these, but use specific observational evidence to support your case. I'll respond to all criticism (to the best of my ability) so long as it is presented in a civil manner, but I won't respond to personal attacks. If you have a valid case to make, make it here and now, or forever hold your peace.  SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) > who wish to attack my theory: Here: How do you measure curved space? Sincerely, Mathew Orman www.ultra-faster-than-light.com www.radio-faster-than-light.com >>This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) >>who wish to attack my theory: > > Here: > How do you measure curved space? With a curved ruler :-)? But seriously, I never claimed that my theory does or doesn't describe curved space or gravity. I stated that I "suspect" that it contains the gravitational field, but I'm not sure about that yet. I also haven't studied General Relativity much or looked into the relationship between my theory and General Relativity, in any detail. That's my next project. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > >>This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) > >>who wish to attack my theory: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" > http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf How do you measure curved space with curved ruler? Describe the measurement procedure. If you fail to logically resolve this than it is a prove that what you are writing is science fiction stories based of huge amount of false assumptions. Sincerely, Mathew Orman www.ultra-faster-than-light.com www.radio-faster-than-light.com >>>>This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) >>>>who wish to attack my theory: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > what you are writing is science fiction stories based of huge amount of > false assumptions. It was a joke, Mathew. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > > This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) > > who wish to attack my theory: > > Here: > How do you measure curved space? Ref: Seife, "Alpha & Omega", Viking (2003) "All you need is a standard ruler. Take an object of known size and transport it a great distance away-- half way across the universe. Compare its apparent size to the size you expect it to be; if it looks smaller than you expect, then the universe is saddle shaped. If it is larger than you expect, then the universe has a positive curvature; it is shaped like a sphere. The only trick is to find that standard ruler. "That is exactly what Boomerang did. The fundamental hot spots in the cosmic microwave background are standard rulers. Theorists knew precisely how big these hot spots are supposed to be, based upon how far light can travel in the 400,000 years between the big bang and recombination. These hot spots are effectively blotches of known size on the most distant object that astronomers will ever see. Since they have a known size, these hot spots are standard rulers. If the universe was flat, theorists expected those blotches to be about one degree wide. If the universe was curved like a sphere, then those splotches would appear bigger than expected, maybe a degree and a half or two degrees across. If the universe was shaped like a saddle, the hot spots would appear smaller than expected, perhaps two-thirds of a degree or half a degree wide". Tha answer: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-LCDM-w-WMAP.gif http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/cmb/experiments.html http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/cosconsensus.html >This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) >who wish to attack my theory: > >"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" >http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Equations 2.3 and 2.4, which were offered without justification, are in total disagreement with experiment, and in fact are both simply incorrect. I didn't read beyond that, and won't until you correct them. >or it's applications: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >If you have a valid case to make, make it here and now, or forever hold >your peace. >>This is an invitation to all (including those on my no response list) >>who wish to attack my theory: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Equations 2.3 and 2.4, which were offered without justification, I assume you mean equations 2.2 and 2.3, since 2.4 is a result of the invariance of the spacetime interval ds' = ds. The justification for 2.2 and 2.3, as I stated at the beginning of Section 2, is that I'm using Euclidean spacetime as the foundation of my theory. I suppose you could call it a postulate. > are in total disagreement with experiment, and in fact are both > simply incorrect. > > I didn't read beyond that, and won't until you correct them. Read one more page, to the end of Section 3. You'll see that I define proper time and proper distance differently than in SR. Please be specific about what experiments you think my equations are in disagreement with, so that I can address them individually. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> Equations 2.3 and 2.4, which were offered without justification, > >I assume you mean equations 2.2 and 2.3, since 2.4 is a result of the >invariance of the spacetime interval ds' = ds. A better assumption is that I mean 2.3 and 2.4. >The justification for 2.2 >and 2.3, as I stated at the beginning of Section 2, is that I'm using >Euclidean spacetime as the foundation of my theory. I suppose you could >call it a postulate. You can postulate a euclidean geometry if you like, but in the remarks explaining 2.3 and 2.4 you made specific claims about what an observer would measure. Those claims and their consequences are testable, they _have_ been tested exhaustively over the last century, and are known to be incorrect. Yet no justification was made for those claims. A citation or two is in order, because that claim is very much equivalent to "lets postulate that relativity has been falsified". There is no reason to attach any physical significance to such a claim unless some experiment actually gives us a reason to. >> are in total disagreement with experiment, and in fact are both >> simply incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >specific about what experiments you think my equations are in >disagreement with, so that I can address them individually. There are literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of experiments and theoretical works that have been published in the last 100 years which depend one way or another on relativistic calculations or corrections. I've published one or two myself - the active scientists here have done much more. As far as "milestone" experiments go, there are many contributers here who are much more knowledgable about the history of relativity than I; you might prevail on them to give you a rundown on it. >>>Equations 2.3 and 2.4, which were offered without justification, >> >>I assume you mean equations 2.2 and 2.3, since 2.4 is a result of the >>invariance of the spacetime interval ds' = ds. > > A better assumption is that I mean 2.3 and 2.4. Okay, the justification for 2.3 (the primed spacetime interval) is that my theory is based on the assertion that spacetime is Euclidean, thus, the metric in all inertial reference frames is Euclidean. But I don't understand why you would question the primed spacetime interval and not the unprimed spacetime interval in 2.2. >>The justification for 2.2 >>and 2.3, as I stated at the beginning of Section 2, is that I'm using [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > _have_ been tested exhaustively over the last century, and are known > to be incorrect. Please, I'm asking you again. Give me a specific example, so I have something to go by. > Yet no justification was made for those claims. A citation or two is in > order, because that claim is very much equivalent to "lets postulate > that relativity has been falsified". > > There is no reason to attach any physical significance to such > a claim unless some experiment actually gives us a reason to. Then I guess there's no reason to attach any physical significance to ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 since you can't seem to cite a specific experiment that gives us a reason to. >>>are in total disagreement with experiment, and in fact are both >>>simply incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > who are much more knowledgable about the history of relativity than I; > you might prevail on them to give you a rundown on it. If someone can give me a milestone experiment, then I'd be happy to respond to it. Otherwise, I have nothing to base my response on, sorry. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf [snip] > > There is no reason to attach any physical significance to such > > a claim unless some experiment actually gives us a reason to. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > since you can't seem to cite a specific experiment that gives us a > reason to. This equation is consistent with every particle accelerator experiment ever done. Your equation is inconsistent with every particle accelerator experiment ever done. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:moortel+rutherford+lab+muon&filter=0 Dirk Vdm a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Steve >> You can postulate a euclidean geometry if you like, but in the remarks >> explaining 2.3 and 2.4 you made specific claims about what an observer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Please, I'm asking you again. Give me a specific example, so I have > something to go by. > If someone can give me a milestone experiment, then I'd be happy to > respond to it. Otherwise, I have nothing to base my response on, sorry. > a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If someone can give me a milestone experiment, then I'd be happy to > > respond to it. Otherwise, I have nothing to base my response on, sorry. Not a single link to the experiment that shows Light Speed Invariance! Not a single link to the experiment that shows Lorentz Contraction! 100% Fallacy Vaporware! Sincerely, Mathew Orman www.ultra-faster-than-light.com www.radio-faster-than-light.com >> a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > 100% Fallacy Vaporware! If you want to falsify my theory, you need to show the experimental evidence that falsifies it. That's the way it works in science. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > >> a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at > >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" > http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf Not at all! If you foundation theory is false like Einstein-Lorentz than all I need to do is to falsify your foundation theories! Sincerely, Mathew Orman www.ultra-faster-than-light.com www.radio-faster-than-light.com >>If you want to falsify my theory, you need to show the experimental >>evidence that falsifies it. That's the way it works in science. > > Not at all! > If you foundation theory is false like Einstein-Lorentz > than all I need to do is to falsify your foundation theories! I'm still waiting. Where's you evidence. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > >>If you want to falsify my theory, you need to show the experimental > >>evidence that falsifies it. That's the way it works in science. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" > http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf Here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2564677419&category=361 And here for the students: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021 Sincerely, Mathew Orman www.ultra-faster-than-light.com www.radio-faster-than-light.com > Here: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2564677419&category=361 > And here for the students: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021 Maybe you'd be interested in my little invention, http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/n etahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505551.WKU.&OS=PN/5505551&RS=PN/5505551 Make me an offer. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > Here: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2564677419&category=361 > And here for the students: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021 So just for laughs I clicked on "view sellers other items" and as it turns out, there are three of them: > a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Please, all I'm looking for is links to experiments that falsify Equations 2.3 or 2.4 in my paper, that is, ds'^2 = dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 + c^2dt'^2 or dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 + c^2dt'^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2dt^2 Please make them _specific_ to these two equations. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Please make them _specific_ to these two equations. If your using standard notation all the experiments on the website refute those two equations. If your notation makes these equations differnt from what they normally mean, I suggest you change your notation to aviod confusion. Otherwise your going to be misunderstood by the vast majority of people. Steve >>> a summary of experimental evidence for relativity at >>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > notation to aviod confusion. Otherwise your going to be misunderstood by > the vast majority of people. Please, provide a link to ONE experiment on the website. Why is this so difficult? Go to the website and find ONE link that falsifies either or both of these equations, post it here, and explain how it falsifies it. Until someone does that, all your arguments are invalid. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> If your using standard notation all the experiments on the website >> refute those two equations. If your notation makes these equations [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > both of these equations, post it here, and explain how it falsifies it. > Until someone does that, all your arguments are invalid. I have no desire to prove your theory wrong or match it to experimental data. you asked for reference, so I gave a reference. If you don't want to bother to look at them, thats up to you. Steve >>> If your using standard notation all the experiments on the website >>> refute those two equations. If your notation makes these equations [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > data. you asked for reference, so I gave a reference. If you don't want > to bother to look at them, thats up to you. I looked through your references. None of them applies to Equations 2.3 or 2.4, in my paper. If you think one of them does, it's up to you to provide a reference to it. Otherwise, my equations remain valid. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > I looked through your references. None of them applies to Equations 2.3 > or 2.4, in my paper. If you think one of them does, it's up to you to > provide a reference to it. Otherwise, my equations remain valid. Thats a rather odd way of looking at things. Your equations are either valid or not independant of any refernces I provide. If you trying to create a scientific theory, the question is if it accurately describes nature. Also, traditionally theories are not assumed valid until disproven, quite the contrary. Steve >> I looked through your references. None of them applies to Equations 2.3 >> or 2.4, in my paper. If you think one of them does, it's up to you to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > nature. Also, traditionally theories are not assumed valid until > disproven, quite the contrary. Right, let me rephrase that... "Otherwise my equations remain unfalsified". This thread is about falsifying my theory, not validating it. So far, no one has given a reference to specific evidence that falsifies it. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > >> Please, all I'm looking for is links to experiments that > >> falsify Equations 2.3 or 2.4 in my paper, that is, > >> ds'^2 = dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 + c^2dt'^2 > >> or > >> dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 + c^2dt'^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2dt^2 > >> Please make them _specific_ to these two equations. Your equation is incorrect. For a photon: (cdt)^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 for observers in all reference frames. This reflects the universality of lightspeed and translates into (cdt)^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2=0 , being the basis for the non-definite metric in SR. Your equation applied to the path of a photon says: ds^2=(cdt)^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^s , which claims that the photon travels 2c in 1 second. Any explanation for this speed doubling? >>>>Please, all I'm looking for is links to experiments that >>>>falsify Equations 2.3 or 2.4 in my paper, that is, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > which claims that the photon travels 2c in 1 second. > Any explanation for this speed doubling? I assume you are referring to the two-way speed of light measurement, since one-way experiments are inconclusive as evidence for the isotropy of light speed, see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests In that case, you are wrong. In my theory, for a photon (cdtau)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 since the lab observer (assumed to be an inertial observer) measures the proper time (refer to my definition of proper time in Section 3 of my paper) between the departure and return of the light pulse. So (cdtau)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = 0 since, for light, dt = 0 (the roles of proper and coordinate time are essentially reversed, in my theory). But remember, this is still a Euclidean metric, since, (cdtau)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + (cdt)^2 which is Equation (3.1), in my theory. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > (cdtau)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + (cdt)^2 > > which is Equation (3.1), in my theory. which says that fast moving muons live shorter. They don't. Dirk Vdm > In that case, you are wrong. In my theory, for a photon > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > which is Equation (3.1), in my theory. You have strange ideas about "definitions". If you describe a "theory" (you urgently should look up the distinction between "theory", "proposal" and "hypothesis") where black is to be interpreted as white and vice versa i don't think you can count on much credit from the average reader. What you are essentially trying to do is rewrite SR in your own terms and definitions, but in the meantime you use the exact same symbols that have different meanings in classical SR. I would recommend to begin respecting the classical definitions and go from there, i.e., clearly define what your additional assumptions and postulates are (there is not a single one in your document). That may complicate your descriptions here and there but at least the reader will be able to follow what you are saying without having to remember too many "role-switches". >>In that case, you are wrong. In my theory, for a photon >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > are essentially trying to do is rewrite SR in your own terms and > definitions, Obviously you haven't read my theory. It definitely isn't a rewrite of SR - far from it. > but in the meantime you use the exact same symbols that have > different meanings in classical SR. I would recommend to begin respecting > the classical definitions and go from there, i.e., clearly define what your > additional assumptions and postulates are (there is not a single one in your > document). It stands, as is, but thanks for the suggestion. > That may complicate your descriptions here and there but at least > the reader will be able to follow what you are saying without having to > remember too many "role-switches". I'm free to define things in any way I want. I figured it would be a lot easier to remember a few changes in definition, while keeping the same notation, than to change both. I put a warning in bold, italic type at the end of my introduction to warn readers of my definition changes. Unfortunately, as they've shown here, many choose to ignore it. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > Obviously you haven't read my theory. It definitely isn't a rewrite of > SR - far from it. What predictions does it make that are different from special relativity? Steve I agree with the first review of your article. Equations 2.3 and 2.4 are frivolous. > > Obviously you haven't read my theory. It definitely isn't a rewrite of > > SR - far from it. > > What predictions does it make that are different from special relativity? > > Steve > I agree with the first review of your article. Equations 2.3 and 2.4 > are frivolous. Please explain why you think Equation (2.3) ds'^2 = dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 + c^2dt'^2 and Equation (2.4) dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 + c^2dt'^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2dt^2 are frivolous, but apparently you don't think Equation (2.2) ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2dt^2 is frivolous. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> Obviously you haven't read my theory. It definitely isn't a rewrite of >> SR - far from it. > > What predictions does it make that are different from special relativity? I'll give you the ones I've found, although, there are probably others that I haven't found (or that I'm forgetting to include). Some are actually alternative explanations for existing phenomena. 1. There is a rotation of the coordinates of the primed (moving) frame transverse to the direction of motion. For example, for motion in the x-direction, the y and z axes are rotated in the y-z plane. There is no such rotation in SR. One result of this is that the magnetic field of a moving charge is shown to be a direct consequence of the rotation of the transverse components of the electic field of the charge. There is also a rotation of the longitudinal component of the electric field of the charge and I _suspect_ that a result of this is the gravitational field. 2. It predicts that charge density is invariant, but that the magnitude of the charge of a charged particle depends on its velocity (it's reduced as the velocity increases). This is the reverse of what SR predicts. There is a nonzero charge density in the region of the charge. Actually, there is no such thing as a point charge. A charge extends over all space, but has a localized energy spike which makes it appear to be pointlike (see http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf). It's the variablity of the magnitude of the charge with velocity, rather than an increase in mass, that explains the reduced reaction of energetic charged particles to external fields in particle accelerators. 3. There is a fourth (time) component in my (generalized) electric field that doesn't appear in the classical electric field. This results in an extra term appearing in the field and force equations that don't appear in Maxwell's equations or the Lorentz force equations. The extra term in the field equations causes them to reduce to particle/wave equations rather than the usual wave equations (see http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf). In my force equations, the extra term results in conservation of momentum in all cases rather than a few specific cases as in the Lorentz force law (see http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf). 4. The time component of the electric field also contributes to the mass of an electron being entirely electromagnetic in origin (see http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf). I don't think it's a fluke that the time component of the electric field fills in so many seemingly unrelated holes in classical physics. 5. I've extended the conventional definition of work (see Section 19 of http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf), so that the work done on a particle depends on the change in potential at the position of the particle, whether the particle has moved or not. This is in contradiction to conventional theory, where work can only be done on a particle that undergoes a displacement. It results in the energy of a distribution of charges being twice the magnitude of the conventional energy (see http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf). There are also terms in F:S and F.S, in my equation for work, that have no classical analogs and predict new phenomena. 6. I've extended the conventional definition of angular momentum (see Section 20 of http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf) to include a term X:P which has no classical analog and may contain what I think is a new explanation of the spin of a particle. In addition, it is more closely related to classical angular momentum than the quantum mechanical description of spin. 7. It predicts that the field of a particle is its antiparticle travelling backward in time and, therefore, there are no electric monopoles, just as there are apparently no magnetic monopoles (see Section 22 of http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf and http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf). None of these predictions or explanations are present in SR. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf So you theory doesn't agree with maxwells equations? Do you have any idea how well experimentally verified they are? Also significant rotation of coordinates under transformations to moving coordinates would show up in polarized beam experiments. This effect would show up in spin dependent measurements. Steve >>> Obviously you haven't read my theory. It definitely isn't a rewrite of >>> SR - far from it. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > None of these predictions or explanations are present in SR. > So you theory doesn't agree with maxwells equations? Do you have any > idea how well experimentally verified they are? My (one) equation contains all of Maxwell's equations, but it also contains extra terms which include my time component of the electric field. > Also significant rotation of coordinates under transformations to moving > coordinates would show up in polarized beam experiments. This effect > would show up in spin dependent measurements. For a constant speed, the coordinates do not rotate continuously - they are rotated by a fixed amount. As I stated in my paper, the rotation of the coordinates doesn't necessarily show up as a rotation. For example, the magnetic field, in my theory, is an effect of the rotation of the transverse components of a moving charge's electric field, something like this (for motion into the page) x .----------> E | . | . | . | . v . E' B The rotation of the electric field doesn't appear as the rotation of the electric field. It appears, in the unprimed frame, as a decrease in the strength of the electric field of the particle in the original direction of the electric field, and an increase of the strength of the magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field. I haven't looked into what effect the rotation of the coordinates may have on spin, but I suspect it may, likewise, have no effect on the direction of the spin. As I said in my last post, spin (I suspect) is a result of the X:P terms in my equation L = XP (see Section 20 of http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf). This is not a transverse effect, it's an effect in the direction of motion. Note that this is _not_ the same description of spin that is given in QM. As a sidebar, I've actually done some computer animations of two charged particles colliding and it seems that you can get rid of the forces due to the magnetic field (qvxB) and the forces due to my extra term (-qv(div A)) in the three-dimensional, non-relativistic version. You get the same results if you assume that, when the two particles are approaching each other, the only forces that affect them are the scalar electric potential of each particle from a _future_ position along its path. When the particles a receeding from each other, the forces come from the _past_ positions along their paths. And when they are at their closest point, it comes from their _present_ positions. For example, for the approaching particles, this F \ ^ qvxB \ | \| qE <--- q ----> v q'---> q'E' | |\ | | \ v v \F' v -qv(div A) is the same as this \ F (qE(future position)) \ \ q q' \ \ \F' (q'E'(future position)) You can do the same thing for the receeding particles and you'll see that it's the scalar potential from the past positions. So the forces on a paricle can be simplified, immensely, if you assume that potentials from the future, present and past positions of each particle affect the present motion of each particle. I haven't tried to prove this mathematically (because I don't know how), yet, but it looks promising on the computer animation. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> So you theory doesn't agree with maxwells equations? Do you have any >> idea how well experimentally verified they are? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > electric potential of each particle from a _future_ position along its > path. What I meant to say was "... the only forces that affect them are qE and q'E' from _future_ positions along their paths". > When the particles a receeding from each other, the forces come > from the _past_ positions along their paths. And when they are at their [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > from the future, present and past positions of each particle affect the > present motion of each particle. This should be "You can do the same thing for the receeding particles and you'll see that it's qE and q'E' from the past positions that affect the particles. So the forces on a paricle can be simplified, immensely, if you assume that only qE and q'E' from the future, present and past positions of each particle affect the present motion of each particle, depending on whether they are approaching each other, at their closest distance from each other, or receeding from each other, respectively." SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> So you theory doesn't agree with maxwells equations? Do you have any >> idea how well experimentally verified they are? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > v v \F' > v -qv(div A) I forgot to put primes on v', q' and A', so the above diagram should be F \ ^ qvxB \ | \| qE <--- q ----> v q'---> q'E' | |\ | | \ v v \F' v' -q'v'(div A') For this particular configuration, -qv(div A) and q'v'xB' are zero. At other points along their trajectories, these would generally be nonzero. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> So you theory doesn't agree with maxwells equations? Do you have any >> idea how well experimentally verified they are? > > My (one) equation contains all of Maxwell's equations, but it also > contains extra terms which include my time component of the electric field. SO your theory doesn't agree with maxwell's equations? >> Also significant rotation of coordinates under transformations to >> moving coordinates would show up in polarized beam experiments. This >> effect would show up in spin dependent measurements. > > For a constant speed, the coordinates do not rotate continuously - they > are rotated by a fixed amount. Thats what I assumed. Because you have any rotation with changes in speed this should show up as extra energy dependance for spin related quantites. Calculate in the center of momentum frame for example then transform to a the lab frame. you'll get a rotation which depends on the energy of the particle in the lab frame. > As I stated in my paper, the rotation of > the coordinates doesn't necessarily show up as a rotation. ?? you said this was a differnce between you theory and standard theories. Let me rephrase my original question, what are the observable differences between you theory and standard theories? Does you theory give any different observable predictions? Steve For example, > the magnetic field, in my theory, is an effect of the rotation of the > transverse components of a moving charge's electric field, something [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > I haven't tried to prove this mathematically (because I don't know how), > yet, but it looks promising on the computer animation. >>> So you theory doesn't agree with maxwells equations? Do you have any >>> idea how well experimentally verified they are? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SO your theory doesn't agree with maxwell's equations? Maxwell's equations didn't agree with the, then, well tested equations of EM after he added his dE/dt term to Ampere's law. Maybe you would like to send him an email and remind him that his equations don't agree with the previous ones. >>> Also significant rotation of coordinates under transformations to >>> moving coordinates would show up in polarized beam experiments. This [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > speed this should show up as extra energy dependance for spin related > quantites. I didn't say that the rotation would show up as a spin related quantity. The direction of the spin may not be velocity dependent, just as the direction of the electric field is not velocity dependent (except the direction change due to the change in position of the charge). The rotation of the transverse coordinates shows up, in the case of the electric field, as a weakening of the strength of the transverse electric field, but the _direction_ of the transverse electric field doesn't change. The other effect of the rotation of the transverse coordinates is the appearance of the magnetic field, but the magnetic field doesn't look, or act, like a rotated electric field, so their is no _apparent_ transverse rotation of the coordinates. Likewise, whatever effect the rotation of the transverse coordinates might have on spin (and I already said that, in my theory, spin is not a transverse effect, if my description is correct, so your argument doesn't even apply to my theory), the direction of the spin would probably not be velocity dependent, just as the direction of the electric field is not velocity dependent. >> As I stated in my paper, the rotation of the coordinates doesn't >> necessarily show up as a rotation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what are the observable differences between you theory and standard > theories? Does you theory give any different observable predictions? I already gave them to you: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl334039238d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vp 8v314g6i4o41%40corp.supernews.com The observable predictions are due to my new terms. Many of the predictions have already been observed, such as conservation of momentum of particles. Classical EM has been falsified, since it predicts non-conservation of momentum of particles for most collisions of charged particles. Physicists have been riding a dead horse for over a century and they don't even know it (or more likely, they don't want to admit it). SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf >> SO your theory doesn't agree with maxwell's equations? > > Maxwell's equations didn't agree with the, then, well tested equations > of EM after he added his dE/dt term to Ampere's law. Maybe you > would like to send him an email and remind him that his equations don't > agree with the previous ones. Notice the question mark. I'm trying to determine wether your reformulating standard theory or wether yoou have a new theory. If the latter the next obvious question is, is your theory consistant with standard theory where the standard theory is know to be correct? >>>> Also significant rotation of coordinates under transformations to >>>> moving coordinates would show up in polarized beam experiments. This [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I didn't say that the rotation would show up as a spin related quantity. No, thats what I said, and then I explained why I said it. > The direction of the spin may not be velocity dependent, I can't make any sense of this statment. Do you mean the how spin transorms under change of rest frame? just as the > direction of the electric field is not velocity dependent (except the > direction change due to the change in position of the charge). The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > field doesn't look, or act, like a rotated electric field, so their is > no _apparent_ transverse rotation of the coordinates. I can't make any sense of this either. Is there a physcical rotation or not? > Likewise, whatever effect the rotation of the transverse coordinates > might have on spin (and I already said that, in my theory, spin is not a > transverse effect, What does this mean? if my description is correct, so your argument > doesn't even apply to my theory), the direction of the spin would > probably not be velocity dependent, just as the direction of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl334039238d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vp 8v314g6i4o41%40corp.supernews.com Yes. And then in the next message you said "the rotation of the coordinates doesn't necessarily show up as a rotation". so what I want to know is what observable effects are different - not the differences in method of calculation. Is there a physical rotation or not? > The observable predictions are due to my new terms. Many of the > predictions have already been observed, such as conservation of momentum > of particles. Classical EM has been falsified, since it predicts > non-conservation of momentum of particles for most collisions of charged > particles. What are you talking about? Physicists have been riding a dead horse for over a century > and they don't even know it (or more likely, they don't want to admit it). >> David Rutherford wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If the latter the next obvious question is, is your theory consistant > with standard theory where the standard theory is know to be correct? I'm basically _extending_ standard theory, just as Maxwell extended the standard theory of his day. Please read my theory, I'm not going to re-explain here what I've already explained in my paper (and its applications). This thread is for those who have already read my theory and think they have found something that doesn't agree with observation. >> I didn't say that the rotation would show up as a spin related quantity. > > No, thats what I said, and then I explained why I said it. And then I explained why I said what I did. >> The direction of the spin may not be velocity dependent, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> field doesn't look, or act, like a rotated electric field, so their is >> no _apparent_ transverse rotation of the coordinates. No, I was merely showing how the electric field transforms, so that you could see that a rotation of the coordinates (in this case the components of the electric field), doesn't necessarily manifest as a rotation of the coordinates (or the components of the electric field). I haven't looked into what the effect would be on spin, but I suspect that it wouldn't manifest as a rotation of the spin (remember that spin, in my theory, is just a part of one component of my angular momentum density four-vector, see Section 20 in http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf). In SR, there is a rotation of the coordinates, but this rotation doesn't manifest as a rotation, it manifests as length contraction and the lack of synchronization of clocks along the direction of motion. > I can't make any sense of this either. Is there a physcical rotation > or not? Is there a physical rotation in SR? >> Likewise, whatever effect the rotation of the transverse coordinates >> might have on spin (and I already said that, in my theory, spin is not >> a transverse effect, > > What does this mean? Read my theory. >> The observable predictions are due to my new terms. Many of the >> predictions have already been observed, such as conservation of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What are you talking about? Read http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > >> David Rutherford wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > applications). This thread is for those who have already read my theory > and think they have found something that doesn't agree with observation. It's hard to believe you know where your theory differs from the standard and instead of saying you challenge others to figure it out for themselves. >>>>David Rutherford wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from the standard and instead of saying you challenge > others to figure it out for themselves. Read my theory. It's very clear where it differs from standard theory. However, it's not important where it differs from standard theory. As with _any_ theory, it should be judged by how it stands up against _observation_, not by how much it agrees or disagrees with other theories. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > Read my theory. It's very clear where it differs from standard theory. I looked at you theory. I see no section where it discusses how it differs from standard theory on observable predictions, and since your terms time, space, electric field, etc do not seem to mean what they normally mean its not at all clear to me where it differs > However, it's not important where it differs from standard theory. As > with _any_ theory, it should be judged by how it stands up against > _observation_, not by how much it agrees or disagrees with other theories. Well, in the case of electromagnitism and relativity, the standard theory matches all well established experimental results, so matching these theories in the correct limits effectivly means your matching observation. One other thing that wasn't clear to me was the purpose of your theory. What unexplained observations are you trying to explain? Or is this theory an easier way to calculate something? Steve >> Read my theory. It's very clear where it differs from standard theory. > > I looked at you theory. I see no section where it discusses how it > differs from standard theory on observable predictions, and > since your terms time, space, electric field, etc do not seem > to mean what they normally mean its not at all clear to me where it differs As I already said, my theory predicts conservation of momentum for colliding particles - standard EM theory doesn't. I don't see you blasting standard EM. As far as my electric field goes, look at Equation (12.3). It contains my, generally _nonzero_, time component d.A, which is (basically) the four-divergence of the vector potential (with my slightly altered version of A in Equation (11.3)). Standard theory predicts that the four-divergence of A is not physical, my theory says it _is_ physical and has observable consequences. One of the consequences of my time component is the possible creation of 'artificial' gravity (if it describes gravity, as I suspect it does). To see this, expand the space components of my force equations. Another consequence is the possible creation of a time machine (expand the time component of my force equations). My theory also predicts, observable consequences due to the new terms in my work density and angular momentum density four-vectors. I have alot of ideas about what physical form these might take, but I'll keep them to myself, for now. >> However, it's not important where it differs from standard theory. As >> with _any_ theory, it should be judged by how it stands up against [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > matching these theories in the correct limits effectivly > means your matching observation. As I have stated many times, electromagnetism predicts non-conservation of momentum for colliding charged particles, independently of the fields, in most cases. Conservation of momentum for charged particles, independently of the fields, _in all cases_, is a well established experimental result. Therefore, standard electromagnetism does _not_ match experimental results. I'm not making this up, you can check it for yourself. > One other thing that wasn't clear to me was the purpose of your > theory. What unexplained observations are you trying to explain? Conservation of particle momentum, for one, but mostly I'm predicting consequences due to the (physical) time component of my generalized electric field. But this thread is not about what the purpose of my paper is. It's about giving those, in the physics newsgroups, who have been flaming me and my theory, for years, to put their proofs where there mouths are. So far, the only thing the few who've chosen to reply have put where their mouths are, is their feet. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > As I already said, my theory predicts conservation of momentum for > colliding particles - standard EM theory doesn't. Yes it does. I don't see you > blasting standard EM. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > creation of a time machine (expand the time component of my force > equations). You seem to misunderstand what I meant by observabler prediction. I meant quantitative prediction of some observable phenominom. Something that can be directly measured. > As I have stated many times, electromagnetism predicts non-conservation > of momentum for colliding charged particles, independently of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > match experimental results. I'm not making this up, you can check it > for yourself. You really do seem to be making this up. Try reading Classical electrodynamics by J.D Jackson which explains how the conservation laws work for EM. Steve >> As I already said, my theory predicts conservation of momentum for >> colliding particles - standard EM theory doesn't. > > Yes it does. No it doesn't. Do the calculation for two charged particles travelling on perpendicular paths. This is considered at the top of page II-26-5 in Feynman's "Lectures on Physics". Look at Fig. 26-6. The forces on the two particles are _NOT_ equal and opposite (as Feynman points out), therefore, action does _NOT_ equal reaction, in this case (and many others for standard EM). This means that the momentum of the two particles in _NOT_ conserved. Experimental observation has shown that the momentum of _PARTICLES_, is _ALWAYS_ conserved, no matter what directions they are coming from (including perpendicular directions). Therefore, standard EM conflicts with observation. Now you are going to say that you have to consider the momentum of the fields, as well as the momentum of the particles, for momentum to be conserved. However, experimental results show that the momentum of the _PARTICLES_, alone, is conserved in all cases, _INDEPENDENT_ of the momentum of the fields. > I don't see you > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I meant quantitative prediction of some observable phenominom. Something > that can be directly measured. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2610247523d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=v pk0m1rcs9gga5%40corp.supernews.com and http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1972198484d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=v ppe0g2o7jl686%40corp.supernews.com >> As I have stated many times, electromagnetism predicts non-conservation >> of momentum for colliding charged particles, independently of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > electrodynamics by J.D Jackson which explains how the conservation > laws work for EM. Please show me how standard EM predicts conservation of momentum of colliding particles, independent of the momentum of the fields. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > Experimental observation has shown that the momentum of _PARTICLES_, is > _ALWAYS_ conserved, no matter what directions they are coming from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > _PARTICLES_, alone, is conserved in all cases, _INDEPENDENT_ of the > momentum of the fields. No. Ever considered how atom trapping works? Radiation pressure? If there is one particle, with the momentum of _PARTICLES_ being _ALWAYS_ conserved, then a field couldn't exert a force it, could it? SignatureTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html >>Experimental observation has shown that the momentum of _PARTICLES_, is >>_ALWAYS_ conserved, no matter what directions they are coming from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No. Ever considered how atom trapping works? Radiation pressure? I don't know much about atom trapping, but doesn't it involve the use of lasers to slow down atoms? In that case, you would have to consider the momentum of the photons along with the momentum of the atom. I believe conservation of momentum of photons and atom, in this case, must be conserved. > If there > is one particle, with the momentum of _PARTICLES_ being _ALWAYS_ > conserved, then a field couldn't exert a force it, could it? I'm considering only collisions involving two charged particles, here, since we're talking about standard EM. If you have only one particle, there are no external fields to exert a force on it, and its momentum is constant. By the way, I didn't say that fields don't have momentum. I said that the momentum of the particles is always observed to be conserved, independent of the momentum of the field(s). The momentum of the field(s) is conserved, in my theory, independent of the momentum of the particles. If you have evidence that, in the collision of two charged particles, the momentum of the particles is _not_ conserved, please cite your reference(s). For confirmation of standard EM, you need to show that the momentum of two moving charged particles is _NOT_ conserved for particles on non-parallel paths. Good luck - as far as I know, all evidence shows that the momentum of the _particles_ is conserved, in all cases, no matter what direction the particles are travelling. SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > >>Experimental observation has shown that the momentum of _PARTICLES_, is > >>_ALWAYS_ conserved, no matter what directions they are coming from [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > conservation of momentum of photons and atom, in this case, must be > conserved. Are you talking about classical EM or photons? Photon momentum is field momentum classically. > > If there > > is one particle, with the momentum of _PARTICLES_ being _ALWAYS_ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there are no external fields to exert a force on it, and its momentum is > constant. The laser is a whole bunch of particles. Put it a long way away from the target atom. Send a brief pulse of duration shorter than the time taken to reach the target atom. Is _PARTICLE_ momentum conserved while the pulse is emitted? Is _PARTICLE_ momentum _ALWAYS_ conserved when the pulse reaches the target? Make it purely classical. Don't use an atom. Just use a small classical particle, dielectric or conducting, your choice. > By the way, I didn't say that fields don't have momentum. I > said that the momentum of the particles is always observed to be > conserved, independent of the momentum of the field(s). The momentum of > the field(s) is conserved, in my theory, independent of the momentum of > the particles. Clearly in disagreement with experiment. Transfer of momentum and angular momentum from particles to fields and vice versa has been observed for decades. Classically, quantumly, microscopically, macroscopically. If you can transfer field momentum to particles, and particle momentum to fields, they can't be independently conserved. If you can exert force on particles using a field with a finite propagation time, field and particle momentum can't be independently conserved. > If you have evidence that, in the collision of two charged particles, > the momentum of the particles is _not_ conserved, please cite your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > evidence shows that the momentum of the _particles_ is conserved, in all > cases, no matter what direction the particles are travelling. Bremsstrahlung. Jackson devotes a chapter to it. Check his references. One counter-example is sufficient. SignatureTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html > Are you talking about classical EM or photons? Photon momentum is field > momentum classically. Classical EM. I'm considering the classical collision of two charged particles using the (classical) Lorentz force law F = q(E + vxB) to determine the forces on each particle. For non-parallel trajectories, the forces are _not_ equal and opposite, so the momentum of the particles is not conserved for particles on non-parallel paths. > The laser is a whole bunch of particles. Put it a long way away from the > target atom. Send a brief pulse of duration shorter than the time taken > to reach the target atom. Is _PARTICLE_ momentum conserved while the pulse > is emitted? I'm sure there is some recoil of the laser. Why don't you measure the recoil and compare it to the momentum of the photons leaving the laser. Let me know if the momentum of laser and photons is not conserved. But that's not what I'm talking about. I was referring to the conservation of momentum in the collision of two _charged_ particles. This ain't it. > Is _PARTICLE_ momentum _ALWAYS_ conserved when the pulse > reaches the target? After you measure the momenta of the laser and photons, run _really_fast_ over to the target and measure the momenta of the target and photons before and after they collide :-). Then tell me if the momentum of the photons and target is conserved. Then calculate to see if there is a change in momentum of the system. Seems like you could have picked a little easier experiment, though. Take a long lunch - go down to the local pool hall (or whatever you call it downunder) and watch billiard balls collide. If classical EM is correct, the momentum of the balls would _not_ be conserved (neglecting friction and gravity) for balls colliding on non-parallel paths. Observation of the collisions will show you that the momentum of the balls _is_ always conserved. > Make it purely classical. Don't use an atom. Just use a small classical > particle, dielectric or conducting, your choice. Fine, that makes no difference. >>By the way, I didn't say that fields don't have momentum. I >>said that the momentum of the particles is always observed to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you can transfer field momentum to particles, and particle momentum to > fields, they can't be independently conserved. Sure they can. Consider two isolated charged particles approaching each other from infinity. If the field of each particle at the position of the other particle transfers some of its momentum to the other particle, so that the net change in momentum of the particles is zero, the momentum of the particles is conserved independently of the fields. If each particle, in return, transfers some of its momentum to the field of the other particle, so that the net change in momentum of the fields is also zero, the momentum of the fields is conserved independently of the particles. >>If you have evidence that, in the collision of two charged particles, >>the momentum of the particles is _not_ conserved, please cite your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bremsstrahlung. Jackson devotes a chapter to it. Check his references. One > counter-example is sufficient. I said that the two charged particles must _both_ be in motion, and travelling along non-parallel paths for classical EM to be in error. If I understand Bremsstrahlung, correctly, only one of the particles is in motion. I'm not questioning the validity of classical EM, in the case of one charged particle at rest and the other in motion (see http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf). SignatureDave Rutherford "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf Applications: "4/3 Problem Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf "Action-reaction Paradox Resolution" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf "Energy Density Correction" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf > > The laser is a whole bunch of particles. Put it a long way away from the > > target atom. Send a brief pulse of duration shorter than the time taken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > recoil and compare it to the momentum of the photons leaving the laser. > Let me know if the momentum of laser and photons is not conserved. There surely is recoil of the laser. Classical EM happily gives conservation of momentum, when you include field momentum (ie photon momentum). > But > that's not what I'm talking about. I was referring to the conservation > of momentum in the collision of two _charged_ particles. This ain't it. You weren't so specific in the post I replied to. Therein you claimed that _PARTICLE_ momentum is _ALWAYS_ conserved in experiments (emphasis yours), where particle momentum does not include field momentum. > > Is _PARTICLE_ momentum _ALWAYS_ conserved when the pulse > > reaches the target? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if there is a change in momentum of the system. Seems like you could > have picked a little easier experiment, though. Perhaps you didn't understand the question. The laser recoils when the pulse is launched. The momentum of the pulse is purely field momentum. Is particle momentum conserved when the pulse is launched? Later, the pulse reaches the target, and exerts a force on it. Is particle momentum conserved in that interaction? If particle and field momentum are independently conserved, the photon (ie field) momentum is irrelevant. It's a feasible experiment. All it takes is a delay between the force experienced by the laser and the force experienced by the target. If there is some delay, the forces on the laser and target are not equal magnitude, opposite direction forces, and their momentum is not conserved. > >>If you have evidence that, in the collision of two charged particles, > >>the momentum of the particles is _not_ conserved, please cite your [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one charged particle at rest and the other in motion (see > http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf). Don't use a stationary particle. Let it slowly move, at say 1m/s. Then it's in motion. Do you think that automatically causes the radiated momentum to equal zero? If your theory states that two particle momentum is conserved for equal mass, equal charge, equal speed particles, then say so. Don't make misleadingly general statements. SignatureTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html >>>The laser is a whole bunch of particles. Put it a long way away from the >>>target atom. Send a brief pulse of duration shorter than the time taken [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > conservation of momentum, when you include field momentum (ie photon > momentum). Obviously, the Lorentz force law (which is the one I have a problem with) isn't used, here, to determine the motions and momenta of the particles involved. What are the classical EM equations that govern the motions of the particles (including photons), in this case? I'm sure that I could find the problem with them, or the discrepancy between them and the Lorentz force law, if I had a little time to think about it. >>But >>that's not what I'm talking about. I was referring to the conservation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > _PARTICLE_ momentum is _ALWAYS_ conserved in experiments (emphasis yours), > where particle momentum does not include field momentum. Sorry, I had referred to charged particles in previous posts. Anyone following this thread should know that it's implied. It gets a little annoying to read if I always say charged particles. > Perhaps you didn't understand the question. The laser recoils when the > pulse is launched. The momentum of the pulse is purely field momentum. Is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is some delay, the forces on the laser and target are not equal > magnitude, opposite direction forces, and their momentum is not conserved. This has nothing to do with the collision of two isolated charged particles. In that case, there is no delay in the forces. Both charges must 'feel' the forces at the same time - by symmetry. There is no reason that one parti |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message